To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Criminal law — Voyeurism — Elements of offence

(0:00:08) Reasons for Judgment: Jamal J. (Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)
(0:00:12) I. Overview – 1
(0:04:00) II. Background – 6
(0:07:15) III. Decisions Below – 12
(0:07:17) A. Supreme Court of British Columbia – 12
(0:07:20) B. Court of Appeal for British Columbia – 16
(0:12:30) IV. Issues – 20
(0:12:51) V. Analysis – 21
(0:12:53) A. Does Section 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Have an Implicit Temporal Component? – 21
(0:13:00) (1) The Voyeurism Offence – 21
(0:15:51) (2) This Court's Decision in Jarvis and the Purposes of Section 162(1) – 26
(0:23:15) (3) The Interpretation of Section 162(1)(a) – 37
(0:23:20) (a) Positions of the Parties – 37
(0:25:17) (b) Text – 40
(0:28:08) (c) Statutory Context and Purpose – 44
(0:37:00) (d) Conclusion – 54
(0:37:21) B. If Section 162(1)(a) Does Not Have an Implicit Temporal Component, Is the Provision Unconstitutionally Overbroad Contrary to Section 7 of the Charter? – 55
(0:40:54) VI. Disposition – 59