The King v. Cohen

Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the accused kept a common bawdy-house within the meaning of Criminal Code s.225
2. 2 Whether a single prostitute habitually occupying a room constitutes a "common bawdy-house" under the added words "occupied or resorted to by one or more persons for such purposes"
3. 3 Whether the facts constitute habitual occupation as opposed to an isolated act

Ratio Decidendi

The accused's habitual use of a rented room for prostitution falls within the statutory definition of a "common bawdy-house" in s.225 because the added words "occupied or resorted to by one or more persons for such purposes" cover habitual occupation even if only one woman practised prostitution there; therefore the acquittal was erroneous and the appeal must be allowed with a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside and new trial directed (Crown informed Court it did not intend to prosecute).

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissing the Crown's appeal is reversed.