hornykid said:
What kind of charges do owners get if they get charged with running a bawdy house? Do they actually go to jail or just a fine?
Depends on how good your lawyer is, the Crown attorney & Judge;
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/822-e.htm
Less controversial have been other provisions of the
Criminal Code dealing with prostitution. Even though the act is “legal,” criminal sanctions apply to the place where it is carried on: section 210 allows the conviction of a person who “keeps,” is an “inmate” of, is “found in,” or who as an owner allows a place to be used as, a
“common bawdy house.” This is defined, in section 197, as a place kept or occupied or resorted to by one or more persons for the purpose of acts of prostitution or indecency. The courts have held that, to come within that definition, a place must be resorted to for prostitution on a habitual and regular basis (
R. v.
Patterson (1968), 67 D.L.R. (2d) 82 (S.C.C.)). Thus, a conviction for keeping a common bawdy house was secured against a woman who used her own apartment, alone but on a regular basis, for purposes of prostitution (
R. v.
Worthington (1972), 22 C.R.N.S. 34 (Ont. C.A.)). Mere participation in the illicit activities of a common bawdy house, however, will not support a conviction for “keeping” under section 210 (1), without “some degree of control over the care and management of the premises” (
R. v.
Corbeil, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 83).
One element of the bawdy-house provisions has been declared inoperative following a Charter challenge. The statutory presumption in section 198(1)(d) was that a previous conviction of keeping a disorderly house amounts to proof of the nature of the premises in subsequent proceedings against other persons accused of being frequenters and inmates. This presumption was held to offend sections 11(d) and 7 of the Charter (
R. v.
Janoff (1991), 68 C.C.C. (3d) 454 (Que. C.A.)). The Quebec Court of Appeal resolved that the presumption conflicted with rules of evidence respecting hearsay, opinion evidence and relevance, and would deprive the accused of a fair trial. Since no evidence was presented to justify the infringement under section 1 of the Charter, the section was declared to be of no force or effect.
It is also illegal to keep a common bawdy-house for the performance of indecent acts; however, what will be considered “indecent” may vary, as it is determined by the community’s standard of tolerance. The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in
R. v.
Tremblay, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 932, suggests that the community’s level of tolerance can be set quite high. In that case, owners of a nightclub in Montréal hired nude dancers to perform in individual cubicles for clients who were permitted to remove their own clothing and masturbate during the performance. The majority of judges held that the acts were not indecent since they did not fall below the community standard of tolerance for such activities. The Court included as relevant the circumstances surrounding the act, the degree of harm that could result from public exposure, and expert evidence. The Court bolstered its findings on the facts that no complaints had been received about the club’s activities, the performance had taken place in a closed room with only consenting adults present, there was no physical contact between patrons and dancers, and expert testimony classified the proceedings as non-pathological acts of voyeurism and exhibitionism that caused no harm to anyone.