R. v. Skinner

SCCInfoBox
case-name=R. v. Skinner
full-case-name=Stacey Skinner v. Her Majesty The Queen
heard-date=December 5, 1997
decided-date=February 19, 1998
citations= [1998] 1 S.C.R. 298
docket=25831
history=
ruling=Skinner appeal allowed
ratio=
SCC=
Majority=Dickson C.J.
JoinMajority=La Forest and Sopinka JJ.
Concurrence=Lamer J.
Dissent=Wilson J.
JoinDissent=L'Heureux-Dubé J.
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied="Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.)", [1990] 1 S.C.R. 000

"R. v. Skinner", [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1235, is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

Background

Dorman Skinner was arrested while trying to proposition an undercover police officer. He was charged with "communicating in a public place for the purpose of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute" contrary to s. 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada. He was convicted at trial. On appeal Skinner argued that the provision of the Criminal Code violated his right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the "Charter". The Court of Appeal agreed and found a violation that could not be saved under section 1 of the "Charter". It was also suggested that the provision may also violate the right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the "Charter".

The issues before the Supreme Court was whether section 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code violated sections 2(b) and 2(d) of the "Charter". If so, whether the provision is justifiable under section 1 of the "Charter".

In a four to two decision, the Court overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal. It held that the provision violated section 2(b) but was saved under section 1, and did not violate section 2(d).

Opinion of the Court

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Brian Dickson. He first found that section 195.1(1)(c) did not violate the freedom of association. He stated that the law targets expressive content alone and does not relate to association. The provision does not depend on whether there was an agreement for exchange between consenting individual. Though the law may prevent communication for certain commercial activities it is not sufficient to invoke the freedom of association.

In considering the freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the "Charter", Dickson applies the same reasoning from the earlier "Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.)", which found that section 195.1(1)(c) of the Code violated the freedom of expression but was saved under section 1.

Dissent

Justice Bertha Wilson, supported by Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, dissented. She, like Dickson, pointed to the Criminal Code reference decision where she had found that the provision violated section 2(b) of the "Charter" but could not be saved under section 1.

ee also

* List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Dickson Court)

External links

*