Clarifying criminal vs. by-law charges

[Blueberry Head]

I would like to know which MP's are not visited by the police or bylaw officers or have not licensing issues.

 

[Tuddy]

Good discussion

Unclear issues to me:
1 Nude seems to not be an issue as seen in the Brampton bylaw that was quashed by the Ontario Superior Court. You can be nude and get a regular massage without it being any evidence of bawdy house crimiality.

2 It seems that a locked massage room is a private place, so there would be no solicitation issue. This also is the stated opinion of the Edmonton Police in their website.

3 The only issue seems to be to prove a handjob was paid for. For it to be a bawdy house their has to be prostitution - money for sex. I agree as most all here have that a HJ is sex. It would be even under the Supreme Court cases allowing full contact nudity at strip clubs as long as no masturbation (which I would assume a hj would be) or penetration.

But there is no direct money paid for a handjob since that would cross over into the bawdy relm. You negoiate for nude-topless-nude reverse- body slide - none of which are "sex" which is needed to be prostitution which is needed for bawdy house law. Unless body slide would be immoral per community standards. The legal issue may be since normally a hj is given as part of any session, if because of that unstated expectation you are really paying for the handjob. Yet your not directly - you don't say, or shouldn't - I want a hj for $20 with my massage.

So the way most smart body rubs operate there is no money at least directly being paid for "sex" or an "immoral act" so no bawdy house.

On the other hand if a cop poses as MPA to get a job and she is told that a hj is part of the finish, that could be a negative factor. Or, of course if the cops come in and see someone getting a hand job or more, that would be bad.

As I recall to be a bawdy house it also has to be "consistenty" or on an "ongoing basis" be used for prostitutiton. As I recall that is why cops need I think its been said 3 undercover busts or more to prove its used more than just once for prostitution.3

 

[nostrilburier]

After all the posts arguing whether MP's are being subjected to criminal or merely by-law charges, here's a section from a research paper published by the Law Commission of Canada (URL follows), Note the criminal code provisions are common across Canada while the by-laws referenced only apply in the City of Toronto.

B. Sex workers
Women working in the sex trades generally are vulnerable to charges of communicating for the purposes of prostitution (code 213), procuring/living off the avails of prostitution (code 212) or under the common bawdy house provisions (code 210). Women receiving in massage parlors, brothels or dungeons are most frequently criminalized under the latter offence which stipulates that being an inmate (a resident or regular occupant) of a common bawdy house as an offense punishable by summery conviction. The Canadian Criminal Code defines a common bawdy house as - Aa place that is a) kept or occupied or b) resorted to by one or more persons, for the purposes of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency@ (code 197). Canadian jurisprudence specifies that the definition of 'prostitution' does not require actual sexual intercourse, nor need there be physical contact. The definition of prostitution merely requires proof that the woman offered her body for lewdness or for the purposes of the commission of an unlawful act in return for payment. The act of offering one's self as a participant in acts of indecency, for the sexual gratification, of the other is sufficient to find prostitution (R. v. Tremblay (1991), 68 C.C.C. (3d) 439; Martin's Criminal Code, commentary on section 197).
This very broad definition has led to recent convictions under section 210 of the Criminal Code of, strip clubs where dancers gyrated on the laps of fully clothed patrons (R. v. Caringi, O.J., 2002); massage parlors that offer full body massages (including manual masturbation) but no oral, vaginal or anal sexual intercourse (R. v. Brandes, O.J., 1997); and sado-masochism dungeons were neither intercourse nor masturbation was offered. In a finding supported by the Supreme Court of Canada when it dismissed the leave for appeal (R. V. Bedford, S.C.C., 2000), Justice Osborn of the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that Athe phase lewd' is broad enough to encompass acts that do not include genital touching but are intended to be sexually stimulating@ (R. v. Bedford, OCA, 2000).

Workers in Toronto massage parlours are also subject to municipal control under by-law number 1-274-200, which regulates the services offered by body-rub parlours. This municipal by-law defines a body-rub as the

 

[Bonzo]

I honestly think you should relax. Prostitution under the law 1867 would include dances at your local strip club as well. There is something called a level of community standard of tollerance of which you don't speak of here. Bawdy house and other similar criminal code charges were not written recently. Therefore, what may have been lewd or unacceptable back in the day, does not necessarily mean it's unaceeptable now. As in the case of lap dancing. There is a metro no-touch bylaw still in effect, however do you see the city doing anything about it? NO. The reason is because the Supreme Court Says that it does not go beyond the acceptable level of community standards of tollerance.

Thererfore, to make it very clear my friend. Yes a manual release is considered to be an act of prostitution. HOWEVER>>>> PROSTITUTION IS LEGAL IN CANADA SIR. If whatever act occurs in a massage room stays in the massage room with the door closed. They cannot charge you with communication for the purposes of.

Can the cops make your life miserable in a massage parlour? Yes they can. Do they on a regular basis..... NO they do not. There have been more people charged as found ins at strip clubs than there has ever been at any massage parlour. SO. I think we should just let all this pass and not speak of it too much. Because histeria is just not good for anyone. AND we don't need backseat lawyers to give everyone a good scare.

But good research non the less.

 

[Sam Conway]

I'm a practising lawyer and fotoking's post is quite accurate. Sasha's post on the other hand is ill-informed and confused.

The definition of "bawdy house" as applied RECENTLY by the Ontario Court of Appeal and supported by the Supreme Court of Canada certainly covers manual masturbation. Any place where you get a HJ is a bawdy house. All the girls there are committing a criminal offence by working there and all the customers commit a criminal offence by going there. If the cops bust you there - barring any technical defences - you are toast. Simple and clear, huh?

I post this stuff again and again and have asked board management to make it a sticky. However, it is quite obvious that board management prefers that the membership NOT be well-informed about legal topics.

 

[DLS]

Sheikh, my impression is that you are the guy with the chip on his shoulder. You seem to have a "mission" which is to prove that going to MP's is legally 100% safe. It isn't. People are charged as found-ins after many of the raids. I assume that some of those charges stick. The law supports the charges depending on what the cops see or do not see.

I don't personally check the dockets to determine the conviction rate. Neither do you. And I'm far from buying your spin that no "decent" spa ever has an owner or girls convicted. To speak bluntly, I don't particularly trust you and I'm not going to accept your say-so.

And re-read my posts. Far from "spreading paranoia", I actually informed people that the risk of being busted was very small. But IMHO it is a real risk and guys should know the consequences before they head inside.

 

[MisterMentalNny]

Actually, I rummaged through an old copy of Martin's Criminal Code at my apartment. At page 393 of the 2003 edition (s. 210 of the Code), is a note on the case of R. v. Ni. This is another Ontario Court of Appeal decision which makes it legally significant. (All Ontario courts MUST obey a decision by the Court of Appeal and only the Supreme Court of Canada can over-rule it).

I quote: "... the court held that the charge under this section (bawdy house) could be made out on the basis of acts of prostitution consisting of acts of masturbation by employees of a massage parlour upon customers."

So there you go, Sheikh. There's a couple of real-life convictions for you. And a refutation of your "legal position" by the province's highest court. It's a 2002 decision. So maybe your memory doesn't stretch that far back. I guess my "assuming" just became actual real-life fact, huh?

Still wanna argue?

 

[Geoff The Phantom Skier]

You're also a practising lawyer who carries a chip on his shoulder Oagre. I've seen charge after charge being dropped because there was no communicating or offer of manual release or other services deemed a criminal offense. We all know that sometimes the cops imbellish their reports and its quite well documented lately case in point, Roy Preston. This cop assaulted a citizen and lied in his report as well as several other officers. The truth came out when a video was produced proving that the cops were lying. Perhaps placing video cameras in the rooms will prove to the JP and the crown that the cops are imbellishing, however we all know that doing this will keep people away in droves.

We all know that the police are asked by the govt to enforce certain things and sometimes they just get a little bit too carried away.

I cannot remember the last time a licensed mpa ever said to me. "Would you like a handjob with that?"

Out of thousands of MP's that have operated over the past 10 years not to mention millions of "sessions". How many clients, mpa's mgmt and owners have actually been convicted of being in a "bawdy house" ?

 

[maplesyrup]

The case Oagre is quite on point and interesting. Note the more than one visit also.

CLIMAX NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE ACT OF PROSTITUTION
R. v. Ni, Li, & Jin,
(2002) Docket:C33765 (OntCA)

The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new trial after the Crown appealed the acquittals of the accused on charges of keeping a common bawdy house and being inmates thereof. A plainclothes police officer attended a massage parlor where one of the accused offered to perform or attempt to perform acts of masturbation upon him.

Police attended on several occasions over a period of several days and the offers of masturbation continued. The Appeal Court found the trial judge erred in directing a verdict of acquittal because there was sufficient evidence that a trier of fact could find the masturbation was

 

[Dr. N. Das]

Gallant effort, DiP. But in the real world, a panel of hard-nosed old judges would probably cut you off at the knees on that argument.

 

[clade]

Thanks for the support Oagre. Must be difficult living with that big chip on your shoulder!!!

The reason I posted the article is not to get everyone panicked, or god forbid, reduce demand in the industry, but for customers to recognize the risks going in. Heyt, we all know the odds are in favour of the house when we go to a casino, but we stil go, right? Even if there are few convictions as Sheik notes, who wants their name mentioned as a found-in in the press releases that the York Region police send out and post on their website?

Since there was a 2 week delay between the Sept 13-16 investigation at Creditstone Spa and the ensuing Oct. 4 press release, it will be interesting to see if there is a release on the IT raid which was around Sept. 23rd if I recall correctly. That will at least verify whether it was only by-law or also criminal charges laid.

 

[Georgia_xo]

Sorry to put it this way, oagre, but you truly are stubborn and/or blind. Probably pig-headed.

I was not going to enter this debate because I am tired of it, but I think you make that impossible... unless I don't give a shit if people here are misinformed!

You have raised this point in a couple of other threads and I have previously suggested to you that you read the judgment in Ni, not headnotes or commentaries by other people... but you are happier with whatever supports your position rather than what the Courts actually say.

The quote you offered is not from the judgment of the Court, but from a commentator: please don't mislead!

Actually, Dave in Phoenix makes a good point and you are plainly wrong in your response.

Here's the quote from Ni that addresses the question:
" ...there was evidence that on each occasion that a plainclothes officer attended for a massage one of the respondents offered to perform or attempted to perform acts of masturbation upon him. It would be open to a trier of fact to find that the masturbation was part and parcel of the body rub. A trier of fact could also find that these were lewd acts for payment for the sexual gratification of the customers and hence acts of prostitution."

The question is not definitively answered by the Court. It depends on the circumstances and facts [as every lawyer knows!]. The argument that a HJ in the course of a therapeutic massage is not prostitution or an indecent act is clearly open and, indeed, recognized (and invited!) by the Court of Appeal... which means the premises in question could not be considered to be a bawdy house!

Or, as the Court of Appeal said in Bedford:
"The issue... [is] ...whether the activities... were primarily sexual in nature."

BTW, what Law School did you graduate from? They should take back your degree... unless, of course, you bought it at WalMart! Do you really practice Criminal Law?????

Anyone intersted in this issue should also read the previous threads and the one I posted here:

Perry

 

[Gep]

For a non-lawyer, you have a pretty big mouth, Sheikh. I simply let people know what the law is. Every time a customer or a girl goes into virtually any spa in Canada, they are taking a legal risk. Whether someone "communicated" about a HJ - or anything else - is not part of the legal equation.

And show me a little more respect, please. I've been on this board for 5 years plus.

I'm going to explain the law on bawdy houses. First of all, check s.197 of the Criminal Code. This defines "bawdy house" as a "place that is resorted to by 1 or more persons for the practice of acts of indecency". To be charged as a "found-in" at a bawdy house, you just have to be "found in" the place. (That's why it's called "found in"). The Court of Appeal has definitively decided that a HJ counts as an "act of indecency". So your posts telling guys they're safe if they don't request FS or a BJ are misleading nonsense.

Thus, any customer found in an MP during a raid is guilty of a criminal offence. Sure, there may be some wriggle room where a customer swears up and down to the judge that he had "no idea" what was going on there in all those other rooms and that he himself just had a sore shoulder. Some judges will give the guy a break - although they would be sceptical of the story. Other judges will simply take the guy down. After all, there's a limit to how innocent a naked guy in a MP can possibly be.

Simply telling me about a couple of cases where the cops screwed up and the Crown dropped the case doesn't count as real legal analysis, Sheikh. Basically, if the cops want it bad enough, they'll prosecute and then it will be up to the judge.

Care to make any more comments about the "chip on my shoulder"??? Or are you actually going to discuss the legal issues instead of insulting me???

 

[Pompal 09.]

I have always liked your arguments regarding HJ's in a massage parlour so I look forward to the day that someone actually argues them in court.

 

[Sean G]

In the end who cares if the charges against MP/MPA/Client stick or not. As a client would you want to be around when there is a raid? And, perhaps give your name for being charged or even just become a witness? For many guys with SOs that would be a nightmare even if the charges don't stick in the end.

So, I agree, understand the risks.

 

[Arod]

You are probably right, but many ill-informed people, including SP's, plead out on the found-in charges. So the result is there are quite a few found-in convictions per year. I believe that just about anyone can beat a found-in charge if they were not caught in the act. However most plead out to avoid the embarassment and legal expense.

And that is the real issue about going to a MP or an incall location, if you get caught in a raid you may see your name published and the resulting embarassment and legal expense that follows.

So the moral of the story, if a particular MP is being harrassed by the locals, the muncipality, and the police it should be reported here because it is information that is relevant to the hobby.

 

[Coolest_Gurl]

Actually, I did argue it in Court. The argument was well received. But the case was decided in favour of my client on another point.

Perry

 

[Marc J]

I assumed and have been told that in order to get busted the girl has to offer you a HJ, name a price and then do it. Am I wrong?

If not then every place in Canada is operating criminally and should all be shut don't. Sorry boys.

 

[ardi]

Actually Perry Mason, the only reason I haven't read Ni is that the topic of HJ's and massage parlors hasn't been a part of my practice since your prior thread. Certainly not because I am only interested in what supports my own position. I'll take the next opprotunity to read Ni and argue it with you.

When I do, I intend to be just as gratuitously and needlessly offensive and insulting to you as you were to me. So, stay tuned. Just remember, you dragged it into the gutter. Not me.

My post re Ni was a response to Sheikh's rants about how no-one ever got busted for giving a HJ. Well, of course they have. If the only disagreement you have with me is that you think an argument based on a therapeutic masturbation has a chance of succeeding, I wonder greatly why you spent most of your post insulting me.

I guess you're just that kind of guy, huh?

 

[The God of tickling]

Ahh...lawyers in a pissing contest.....how novel.