If that's what the OP wanted, then the appropriate site for them to go to would be:3Tees said:
http://www.lsuc.on.ca
Lawyer's view needed
- Thread starter maximum
- Start date
http://www.lsuc.on.ca
The Bar Rules frown upon giving legal advice on the Internet, not to mention that there enters the issue of whether one is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Therefore enquiring minds will need to continue to wonder. . .3Tees said:
Anyone who wishes to receive legal advice where they have recourse for bad counsel is well advised to retain a lawyer and see them in their office.
As has been said many times on TERB the advice you receive here is worth what you paid for it. That said most of what I've read in this thread has quite adequately covered the issue. However, perhaps we should all start putting at the end of such posts the standard boilerplate: "Nothing herein should be considered legal advice."
Keeping common bawdy-house
210. (1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Landlord, inmate, etc.
(2) Every one who
(a) is an inmate of a common bawdy-house,
(b) is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house, or
(c) as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Okay to sum up, if you're a "keeper" of a bawdy house, its an indictable offense, and you don't need to be found in the place. You can be charged after the fact, and there is no statute of limitations for indictable offenses.
Although she would have to be running the place, managing, in charge, a "keeper" to be charged with that offense.
If she's just an "employee" working there, then she would just be an inmate, the lesser summary conviction offence, which has a six-month statute of limitations. Presumably, you could be charged after the fact for being an inmate as long as the evidence shows you worked there at the time.
Found-in, on the other hand is what a customer would be charged with, and definetely requires being found on the premises by lawful authority
210. (1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Landlord, inmate, etc.
(2) Every one who
(a) is an inmate of a common bawdy-house,
(b) is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house, or
(c) as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Okay to sum up, if you're a "keeper" of a bawdy house, its an indictable offense, and you don't need to be found in the place. You can be charged after the fact, and there is no statute of limitations for indictable offenses.
Although she would have to be running the place, managing, in charge, a "keeper" to be charged with that offense.
If she's just an "employee" working there, then she would just be an inmate, the lesser summary conviction offence, which has a six-month statute of limitations. Presumably, you could be charged after the fact for being an inmate as long as the evidence shows you worked there at the time.
Found-in, on the other hand is what a customer would be charged with, and definetely requires being found on the premises by lawful authority
No comment... 
But there is a lot of b.s. here mascarading as informed opinion.
Each case turns on its own facts.
Perry
But there is a lot of b.s. here mascarading as informed opinion.
Each case turns on its own facts.
Perry
There are none because it's a rare situation and it would be extra work for the police for not a lot of return to society, i.e., resolving a situation that is already resolved.
However the question was whether it's possible, not whether it has happened. My claim is possible but unlikely, since the police are UNLIKELY to pursue a closed issue when the crime is minor. However who knows what the situation is? Maybe they have other reasons to go after her, maybe they need her testimony in relation to some other more serious offense. You don't know.
Your point about being a status offense is misleading. The offense is defined by having that status at the time the offense occurred, not at the time of arrest. Time of arrest has nothing to do with anything.
However the question was whether it's possible, not whether it has happened. My claim is possible but unlikely, since the police are UNLIKELY to pursue a closed issue when the crime is minor. However who knows what the situation is? Maybe they have other reasons to go after her, maybe they need her testimony in relation to some other more serious offense. You don't know.
Your point about being a status offense is misleading. The offense is defined by having that status at the time the offense occurred, not at the time of arrest. Time of arrest has nothing to do with anything.
Although it is an actual case to the OP, hopefully all of the rest of us are treating it as a hypothetical - we don’t have enough of the actual case facts (plus this being the internet - with a few little legal and ethical issues because of that). Therefore presumably like most hypotheticals we aren’t bound by what typically does the Crown do, but rather what could the Crown do.Perry Mason said:
Again, No one should rely upon legal advise not obtained in a client - lawyer relationship.
What Is........
The evidence....
She is looking for some sort of sympathy.
tell me the 'EVIDENCE'..and I can certainly advise you onthe potential outcome!
The evidence....
She is looking for some sort of sympathy.
tell me the 'EVIDENCE'..and I can certainly advise you onthe potential outcome!
Yeah... evidence is probably a stocky clean cut white guy looked at her funny, and later that day she saw a cop car parked near her place.GOLEAFSGO67 said:
The cops generally are not going to stake out an incall for an extended period of time. If they suspect something they'll send in an undercover a couple of times and then storm in and charge everyone. They COULD stake out an incall, but they probably do have better things to do.
They aren't going to conduct extended surveillance unless they think something worse is going on--like drug trades, human trafficing, child prostitution, or whatever. Even on a neighbour complaint they probably just would raid the place, even if it doesn't result in a lot of good charges--it would harass the incall into moving, and that would be enough to satisfy the neighbour who complained.
It is possible that something totally unrelated is going on. Maybe some P.I. is tailing someones wife or something. This could be CSIS or Immigration doing a stakeout looking for illegal activities. Not all problems involve the person with the guilty conscience.fuji said:
My Lord, I feel like "Captain Renault" I'm shocked, shocked to find that this makes sense and I agree. Miracles never cease.Cassini said:
I agree with Cassini. There are other possibilities that haven't been considered.
Like many other posters have said, if the object of the excercise was just to charge her, they probably could have done so a long time ago.
If it's really LE watching her, either they suspect "real" criminal activity connected to her (underage, traffcking, dealing...) or they are in fact interested in one or more of her clients or associates. Maybe the Leaseholder is known to provide units for illicit or cash operations.
Or it might be something else, like the Private Investigator scenario. Maybe the PI is working for the building Management is trying to build a file in advance of evicting her (or the person under who's name the Lease is...) or for vigilante tenants who want her out? Not unheard of for ex-cops to do that kind of work.
Might even be undercover journalists or social researchers.
Does she have 100% proof it's an actual Police operation??
Like many other posters have said, if the object of the excercise was just to charge her, they probably could have done so a long time ago.
If it's really LE watching her, either they suspect "real" criminal activity connected to her (underage, traffcking, dealing...) or they are in fact interested in one or more of her clients or associates. Maybe the Leaseholder is known to provide units for illicit or cash operations.
Or it might be something else, like the Private Investigator scenario. Maybe the PI is working for the building Management is trying to build a file in advance of evicting her (or the person under who's name the Lease is...) or for vigilante tenants who want her out? Not unheard of for ex-cops to do that kind of work.
Might even be undercover journalists or social researchers.
Does she have 100% proof it's an actual Police operation??
Before they bust anyone they would have to have a case. If they are watching her that means that they dont have a sufficient case and are in the process of building one. If she quits now while shes ahead they may never build a proper case to arrest her. Arresting someone on a bawdy house charge is kinda hard to do without walking in and catching them....unless of course they shake down the guys that come out and intimidate them into "talking"; which I think is highly highly unlikely.
However, I'm assuming shes an indy? if so I find it hard to beleive that LE will waste time and resource staking out some indy girl. Theres certainly more.... a lot more to this story
However, I'm assuming shes an indy? if so I find it hard to beleive that LE will waste time and resource staking out some indy girl. Theres certainly more.... a lot more to this story
