Jean Paul Labaye appealed to his conviction of owning a house in which the supreme court of Canada was trying to determine whether or not the acts committed in this swingers house were acts of indecency that go against the criminal code. For those who don't know, a swingers house is a place in which people can commit voluntary acts such as cunnilingus, masturbation, fellatio and penetration with other consenting partners. Labaye is challenging sec210 (1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C 1985,c. C-46. The case in which I will be analysing is the following: R v Labaye,(2005), SCC 85, [2005] 3 SCR 728. In this essay, which will be divided into 3 parts, part 1 being the summary of the case, will include: the nature of the proceeding and the judge's…show more content… Finally part 3 will be a conclusion paragraph in which I will highlight the main points of my analysis and thesis. My opinion is inline with the dissenting decision and not the majority, usually my opinion is in accordance with the majority but with this case I beg to differ. I prefer the the dissenting opinion of Proulx J.A who argues that: “Entrants were screened and informed. All the participants retained their full autonomy. The sexual exchanges they participated in reflected their personal choice and view of sexuality”. I believe there was no exploitation that took place because all members paid to join this club, compared to the arguments of the majority which says the actions that took place were…show more content… The case was heard on April 18th, 2015 and the judgment was delivered on December 21st,2005. The judges who were part of the majority is chief Justice Beverley McLachlin alongside major Ian Binnie, Morris Fish, Marie Deschamps,Louise Charron and Rosalie Abella. The judges that were in dissent were Michel Bastarache and Louis Lebel. The facts of the case are the following, the appellant owned a club in Montréal, Québec called “L’Orage”, however, it is noted that it is located in a commercial building. As well there were several advertisements that were published in the renown Voir Magazine and Journal de Montréal which is one of the most popular newspapers in the city, and a few swingers club publications. On the topic of advertisement, there were between 2,000 to 3,000 brochures handed out to the general public. A trial judge came to the conclusion with the evidence provided that the apartment in which the defendant was not considered to be a legitimate apartment, he quotes : “there was no kitchen equipped with basic plumbing, cupboards or electrical outlets. There was no space that could serve as a bedroom, apart from eight mattresses strewn about on the floor”. A city of Montréal building inspector declared the building as not a legit apartment because it did not meet the standards set out by the National Building Code.
