R. v. Saade
The appeal was allowed because the Crown did not adduce evidence that the appellant knew of or participated in the illicit activities in the champagne room and the trial judge did not address that essential element; absence of proof required setting aside the conviction and entering an acquittal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C27930
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: George Saade
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 29 March 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction — Court of Appeal Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; acquittal entered.
- Legal Topics
- Bawdyhouse, Keeping a Common Bawdyhouse, Mens Rea, Knowledge, Participation, Sufficiency of Evidence, Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Appellant
George Saade
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction — Court of Appeal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Crown proved the accused participated in the illicit activities of the common bawdyhouse
- 2 Whether exercising management and control and hiring dancers suffices to prove participation/knowledge of illicit conduct
- 3 Whether the trial judge addressed the essential element of participation in the use of the premises as a common bawdyhouse
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was allowed because the Crown did not adduce evidence that the appellant knew of or participated in the illicit activities in the champagne room and the trial judge did not address that essential element; absence of proof required setting aside the conviction and entering an acquittal.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; acquittal entered.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Conviction set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Saade Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-03-29 Docket numbers C27930 Judges Brooke, John Watson; Finlayson, George Duncan; O’Connor, Dennis Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 19990329 DOCKET: C27930 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) and GEORGE SAADE (Respondent) BEFORE: BROOKE, FINLAYSON and O’CONNOR JJ.A. COUNSEL: Barbara L. Kelly, for the appellant Philip A. Downs, for the respondent HEARD: March 19, 1999 ENDORSEMENT [1] We think this appeal must be allowed. The appellant was charged with keeping a common bawdyhouse contrary to s. 210(1). [2] To make out the offence, the Crown must establish not only that the appellant exercised some degree of management and control over the premises but that he participated to some extent in the illicit activities of the common bawdyhouse. That is, that he participated in the use of the house as a common bawdyhouse: R. v. Corbiel (1991), 2 S.C.R. 830. [3] In this case, the trial judge does not appear to have addressed the second issue. The decision seems to turn on the view of the trial judge that: If it were not for the fact that the opportunity for these freelancers to work in this establishment I would have some difficulty in attaching knowledge to the defendant as to what was going on within the champagne room, if it was simply resorting to girls that he hired to perform a dance and they in addition provided the opportunity to do this private dance in the champagne room. But in my view, the fact that the defendant hired girls or offered the girls an opportunity to work free in his establishment is in my view the culminating factor that allows the Court to determine that the defence knew exactly what was taking place in the champagne room, and allowed it by virtue of his hiring or allowing these girls to work in his establishment. [4] However, there was no evidence that the appellant knew of the activity testified to by the police officers and there was no evidence as to whether freelancers were the ones who carried out the illicit conduct rather than his employees who danced there for tips. [5] In the circumstances, the appeal must be allowed, the conviction is set aside and an acquittal is entered. “John W. Brooke J.A.” “G. D. Finlayson J.A.” “D. O’Connor J.A.”