R. v. Labaye, Case Study Example

Introduction

The name of the case that will be summarized is R. v. Labaye, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 728, 2005 SCC 80. The appellant in the case was Jean-Paul Labaye, and the respondent was Her Majesty the Queen. In this case, the appellant ran a club, L’Orage. The club was a meeting point for swingers after paying an annual subscription fee of $200. The building housing the club had three levels, and the appellant was permitted to run the first two as a restaurant and bar. However, the third level was the appellant’s apartment, and it is here where members gathered for group sex. One door was private, and only registered members could be allowed through. This paper discusses the summary of the case, facts, legal issues, decisions and remedies, and judicial reasoning.

Summary of the R v Labaye case

The nature of the case was a motion. The judges were to decide whether or not the appellant had breached s. 210 Criminal Code by owning a common bawdy-house at his club. The case was arraigned in the Supreme Court of Canada. The jury had nine judges. The judges’ of the majority decision were led by McLachlin C.J. The judges that dissented from majority decisions were Bastarache and LeBel JJ.

Facts

In the case, the appellant was accused of operating a common bawdy house that facilitated couples and registered members at the club to perform indecent acts that contravened s.210 Criminal Code Act. The appellant had a club where singles and couple met and had group sex. Every newcomer was briefed of the activities that happened in the apartment before being allowed in. Registering and participating in group sex was voluntary for all members. There was a gatekeeper at the maintain entrance to prevent unregistered members from getting to the apartment.

The legal issue

The judges were to determine whether keeping a common bawdy-house where group sex was performed was contrary to Criminal Code s. 210. Canadian law prohibits running a common bawdy house and provides a two-year sentence term for convicts. The law defines a common bawdy house as a unit owned by one or more persons where prostitution happens. Secondly, another legal issue was determining whether the common bawdy-house qualified as a “public” place or not was a legal issue. The merit of the apartment as public issue would be proven or disqualified based on section 197 (1).

Decision and remedy

The jury concluded and convicted the appellant. It was established that the apartment used as a common bawdy-house merited as a “public place” as provided in part 197 (1) of s.210 Criminal Code. According to section 197 (1), public space is defined as where the public has access as defined in their rights or through invitation. The trial judge also noted that there was social harm caused by the sexual activities that took place in the apartment as it happened as other people watched, as they could access the place through invitations. The jury ruled the acts at the apartment as indecent. The court also ruled that the acts committed at the apartment were dehumanizing. These occurrences were intended to encourage anti-social behavior and were not mindful of Canadian society’s moral values. Lastly, the trial judge noted that engaging in such sexual activities increased the risks for sexually transmitted diseases.

Judicial Reasoning

One of the reasoning of the trial judge was that obscenity constituted acts beyond which Canadians could accept socially. Applying this judicial reasoning to the case context, group sex that happened at the apartment, which falls under the “public space” as defined in section 197 (1) of s.210, exceeded what Canadians would accept socially. The second reasoning from the trial judge was that “obscenity” has to be harmful to other people. The majority judges in the trial found that the act committed at the appellant’s apartment could harm other people who were present and watching the group sex activities. Further, group sex activity could lead to sexually transmitted diseases which could cause harm. The jury concluded that the sexual acts at the apartment could encourage anti-social behavior.

The judges established a test for measuring indecency in similar cases. First, an indecent act threatens liberty. Secondly, indecent acts expose undesirable acts. In this case, having group sex at the apartment was undesirable and contributed to the decision by the court to convict the accused. Other factors that were to be used to prove indecency was whether individuals participating in the act were forced and if harm was caused to people participating in the act.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the court was to determine whether the acts committed at the appellant’s apartment qualified as indecent as per the Criminal Code. Upon analysis of the facts, the appellant was found guilty and convicted. Most judges decided that the apartment was a “public space” and that group sexual acts within the place could encourage anti-social behavior and disregard for community standards. The judges developed an indecent act criterion that can be used to identify indecent acts.