Help on interpretation of the law.

Provisions of Criminal Code

The criminal code of Canada makes unlawful the following:

• owning, managing, leasing, occupying, or being found in a bawdy house, as defined in Section 197 (Section 210)
  
• 
  

• I have been beating my brain trying to understand this ( I am no lawyer). I want to find my answer with regard to incalls as for visiting MPs or SCs and what degree of risk it carries out of curiosity. My understanding from reading above as stated is that one has to be physically found in the bawdy house (i.e. at the time of raid) in order to be charged. If my understanding is correct the legal risk of incalls are much less than what I originally thought. It is like flying with a plane. If you are so much out of luck to be in the wrong plane at the wrong time (when it crashes) then you may die. Are incalls really that low risk?
  

My question... If there is compelling evidence that one may have been in a bawdy house (like his picture in the camera as he enters or lives the place), is that sufficient to charge him with being found??

As a totally hypothetical example to clarify my question, would I be legally responsible if I go to an SC or MP (and I know SCs have cameras in the parking lots of all SCs by law and may be MPs too as I have never been to MPs) and receive totally legal services and then the SC or MP is raided a few months or years later for whatever reason and my picture in the cameras going to the place months or days before. Or I would be responsible only if I am caught receiving illegal services (likely not as being in there is enough to be charged regardless) or have to be physically there at the time of the raid? Any lawyer or law expert on board? (or someone with superior intrepretation skills as per statement above).

From my understanding, the interpretation and practice of the law is that you have to be there when the police bust the place. If you frequented a bawdy house and left without being arrested, you are fine (even if the place is busted at a later date). I have never heard of any recent Canadian case where people were arrested post-visit. Ultimately, the police are just interested in shutting the place down and not in catching every single client.

Thank you very much for the quick response Megan. Yes when I read it that was my understanding too.

I have a gray memory that I may have read many years ago about a place on bank street being busted and the paper said the cops have confiscated the appointment books to go after the what they called Johns. My memory is very gray and since I don't know what year it was, I can't find the link.

Btw, congratulations on surpassing the 2500th post mark, Megan :-).

I have a gray memory that I may have read many years ago about a place on bank street being busted and the paper said the cops have confiscated the appointment books to go after the what they called Johns. My memory is very gray and since I don't know what year it was, I can't find the link.

They may have contacted the clients for other reasons such as gathering evidence, or to issue "Dear John" letters. I highly doubt it was to charge them with bawdy house.

Dear John letters? Is this invitation to what they call Johns' school for the whole week? Their wives wouldn't be happy if they had opened the letters accidently or in the mail. If they haven't broken the law (based on yours and my interpretation of the law as written), they they shouldn't be penalize/harassed in any way by LE, in my view.

Dear John letters? Is this invitation to what they call Johns' school for the whole week? Their wives wouldn't be happy if they had opened the letters accidentally or in the mail. If they haven't broken the law (based on yours and my interpretation of the law as written), they they shouldn't be penalize/harassed in any way by LE, in my view.

Ha. And since when has the strict letter of the law mattered? LE are quite capable of sending letters, arresting people, and then mysteriously failing to ever actually press charges. If you want an example in a completely different context, using your cellphone to take pics or video of police doing things - in a public place, where there's no expectation of privacy - that they may not like made public is a good way to get your phone (or camera) confiscated. This is completely illegal on their part, and if you press the issue you'd probably get your phone and/or camera back... although you'd be likely to find that any material relating to LE doing anything they shouldn't had been mysteriously erased.

Back to the matter at hand... yes it's entirely possible that sufficiently over-zealous LE might send 'Dear John' letters to people they suspected but couldn't actually prosecute. After all, where's the harm in callously screwing up someone's relationship with their SO? If they're suspected of having been in a suspected bawdy-house they clearly deserve it, right?

Apologies for the rant, but the point is that the finer points of the law won't stop LE making your life miserable if they choose to do so.

Having said that, I'm inclined to agree with Megan: unless you're unfortunate enough to be on the premises when somewhere is busted, nothing is likely to happen; LE just aren't that bothered unless something seriously criminal (drugs, minors, people-trafficking) is going on. If you're seeing another consenting adult (or two :) ) then the risk is so small as to be minimal. If you're that paranoid, you'll probably never make it to anyone's incall because it's far too dangerous crossing the road on the way there :)

From Parliament's website:

(Laura Barnett, Law and Government Division, Revised 14 February 2008 )

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0330-e.htm#bawdy

This issue was the subject of a ruling by the Quebec Court of Appeal in 1991 in the case R. v. Lemieux (1991), 70 C.C.C. (3d) 434 (Que CA):

http://www.jugements.qc.ca/php/decision.php?liste=56511031&doc=A137D77E77732A792332A24CCCF0BDDCC64D4EEA32C5BFBA209619369650CA7E&page=1

Justice Morris Fish wrote:

From Parliament's website:

"To be guilty of being "found in" a bawdy-house, a person must have no lawful excuse for his or her presence and must have been explicitly found there by the police at the time of raid."

This answers the thread question clearly and in full. Thanks.

If you're that paranoid, you'll probably never make it to anyone's incall because it's far too dangerous crossing the road on the way there :)

This is funny. Thanks for the laugh. No incalls are a lot less risky than I thought.

The following is from WIT's link

(2) Every one who

1. is an inmate of a common bawdy-house,
   
2. is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house, or
   
3. as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
   

I wonder if occupier would apply if he visits there too often (like proof that one may have been in an SC for many hours. Likely not as occupier in my mind applies to someone who lives there but Phaedrus's post about LE makes me wonder if they wish to pin down someone.....

As far as Dear John letters, my impression is that they can send those letters even for outcall hobbyists if they wish to do so. Both unfortunate and surprising to read about abuse of law and authority if that is the case.

... as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits ...

 

I wonder if occupier would apply if he visits there too often ...

The key thing about 210(2)© is that it is directed at "Every one who ... having charge or control of any place..."

I think that "occupier" was included on this list in order to explicitly cover anyone who has charge or control, but who has not, or is not, making or receiving payments for it - for example, someone who is house-sitting for a friend, perhaps.

A visitor, on the other hand, is not someone who can be said to have charge or control of the place being visited.

What is the point in raising anxiety about the theoretical possibilities of being arrested for seeing an independent paid companion? I really don't understand this at all.

We do not live in a repressive, totalitarian dictatorship. Big Brother is not watching your every move. As long as you're engaging in activities with competent adults (that is, adults who are capable of giving consent freely), in private, without disturbing the neighbours, you have nothing to worry about.

Paid companions are not enemies. The overwhelming majority of us are not here to upset anyone's life; out them to their spouses, families or employers; or to rob, coerce or blackmail them. We are businesswomen making a living. Setting up clients to get caught by law enforcement agents is simply bad for business.

No matter how important you are, or imagine that you are, with few exceptions, the police are not very interested in how you're spending your time. Really, they're not. If you're a major politician who needs to have the RCMP around you most of the time, you probably won't spend a lot of time with paid companions on a regular basis, not because of the legalities, but because your privacy is significantly limited by your role in public life.

Otherwise, unless you're part of an international drug cartel, a suspected terrorist or someone whose activities are likely to put the public at risk, the police are not camped outside your residence, watching you. They haven't bugged your car, your landline or your cell phone. Everyone wants to feel important, but the fact is that most people are only important to those with whom they have direct, personal contact. So relax. Get over yourself. Don't let your ego run away with you.

Independent paid companions are very rarely raided. Why? Because the police tell us that they're not interested in what we're doing as long as no one complains about it! Keeping a low profile while being careful about whom we entertain, how many we see and how late at night makes all the difference.

You are more likely to be arrested for being found in a common bawdy house if you're visiting a massage parlor staffed by women who speak little English. When the authorities receive enough complaints about those places, they may raid them, particularly if they consider the management to be involved in human trafficking or if they appear to be employing underage women. Established, reputable massage parlors are very, very rarely raided. This is not because everything that goes on in them is legal, but because for various reasons the police elect to ignore what happens as long as the neighbours don't complain too much.

Seeing an independent massage provider is no riskier than seeing an independent paid companion.

Instead of finding things to be upset about--and ways to distress others--why not focus energy on finding ways to ensure that your encounters with companions are as unique, satisfying and rewarding for both parties as possible? The karma police will be happier!

This thread is NOT about seeing independent paid companions. As the OP indicates it is about understanding the law as applied to incalls, the focus of which as clearly stated in the OP was full service MPs and SCs. It is important to understand the law as commiting what may be considered a crime, not knowingly is not an excuse.

This is a legal section on cerb which means that we can ask questions related to legal aspects of the current prostitution laws if we are not clear about them and that is exactly what I did and what I asked was completely in accordance with cerb rules and I thank you those who took the time and clarified this particular clause (found in) for me.

No body even remotely indicated or suggested in any way that paid companions are the enemy anywhere in this thread. Quite frankly I am not sure where the statement came from!!.

It was no one's intention to distress others. In fact this thread lowers the anxiety (for sure lowered mine) not raises it as I said incalls are by far less risky than I thought originally.

This thread is NOT about seeing independent paid companions.

Why else would you be going to an incall? LOL

The key thing about 210(2)© is that it is directed at "Every one who ... having charge or control of any place..."

 

I think that "occupier" was included on this list in order to explicitly cover anyone who has charge or control, but who has not, or is not, making or receiving payments for it - for example, someone who is house-sitting for a friend, perhaps.

 

A visitor, on the other hand, is not someone who can be said to have charge or control of the place being visited.

Thanks for clarifications WIT. From what I have read incalls are a lot less risky than I thought before. The chances of being in what the law may considers as a bawdy house exactly at the time when it is raided is extremely low. While taking incalls with reputable independent escorts and masseuses and even those reputable agencies and MPs appears to be almost risk free, it is however, likely advisable to stay clear from those in questionable states like certain MPs (especially those likely involved in trafficking) or full service SCs, even though the risk appears very low under the definition of "found in" clause.

Additional Comments:

Why else would you be going to an incall? LOL

I am surprised regarding this question. Incalls include but not limited to independents LOL. Visiting any sex worker anywhere where the law may consider a bawdy house' date=' like full service SCs (I stay clear from them like plague) or those MPs offering full service (plenty advertise in local papers, some hiring asian masseuses and some offer full service) or agency escort ladies who offer their services in hotels or their homes (agency ladies are not considered independents) among others could fall in incall category lol.[/font']

An "incall" is anywhere a companion, massage provider or other sex worker receives clients. And if she sees clients there habitually--which can be as few as two times--the place becomes a "common bawdy house."

Those of us who work out of our homes or out of apartments we use for business purposes are operating bawdy houses even if we're the only one working there or we share the place with another worker who may or may not live there full-time.

If a provider rents a hotel room and sees clients there, the first one she sees is considered to be a private visit. It is only when she sees more than one person in that room, for business purposes, that the place becomes a bawdy house and the hotel must evict her if there's a problem. If the hotel knowingly tolerates a prostitute operating on their premises, they are guilty of living on the avails of prostitution.

Innkeepers and prostitutes have been in cahoots from the dawn of time. The mutually lucrative arrangement is most likely to break if other hotel guests are inconvenienced. Noise, traffic and late hours are the problems most likely to alert other guests and the hotel management.

The following article clearly states that (Ottawa) police is not really interested in cracking down on incalls and almost solely concentrates on street level prostitution where drugs or public complain is involved. Here is a related part:

And here is the full article

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/04/mean-streets-for-hookers

In another article that I also find, sex workers were encouraged to contact the police in case somebody is hurting them (so please do so if you need help without fearing arrest based on this article)

and here is full article

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/05/cash-rolls-in-for-sex

I had trouble with a former client who refused to leave me alone and stop contacting me when I asked him to do so. When he persisted, recently, I reported him to the Vancouver Police Department officer who is responsible for liaison with sex trade workers. I've described what happened in another thread.

I was reluctant to involve the police because I didn't want to out myself to them. I have worked very quietly, under the wire, in Vancouver for three and a half years with no problems and I had no intention of retiring just because I was being harassed. One of the prostitutes' advocacy agencies here assured me that I could speak with this particular police officer without being charged or being subjected to ongoing police investigation. When I talked to the officer in person, she told me exactly the same thing. That the VPD has no interest whatever in locating, charging or annoying independent sex workers. While what I do is illegal, I am not a problem in the community and so there's no reason for the police to pursue me.

They're concerned about street workers because they work in unsafe conditions and are frequently subjected to harassment, violence, robbery and other kinds of abuse including kidnapping and murder.

It was a relief--and very gratifying--to be told that my safety is more important to the police than the way I make my living and that I am as entitled to support and protection as anyone else.

I think it's reasonable to interpret this to mean that no one is going to be raiding my house anytime soon.

Something else, with an incall, while the lady should be discrete in her encounters (ie don't have one client after another showing up at her hotel room, draw attention of housekeeping to say the least, or if at her home, one car shouldn't be pulling up as another leaving, well we get the idea) the client should be equally discrete. He shouldn't be standing around,waiting in the lobby, looking at his watch, maybe carrying a bouquet of flowers (or something else that centres him out) with him. He should arrive go right to the elevator and go, just like he belongs there, just another customer. And even if the staff on duty don't recognize you, for all they know you checked in when they were off shift

Discretion is everyone's responsibility

A quick rambling

RG

Something else, with an incall, while the lady should be discrete in her encounters (ie don't have one client after another showing up at her hotel room, draw attention of housekeeping to say the least, or if at her home, one car shouldn't be pulling up as another leaving, well we get the idea) the client should be equally discrete. He shouldn't be standing around,waiting in the lobby, looking at his watch, maybe carrying a bouquet of flowers (or something else that centres him out) with him. He should arrive go right to the elevator and go, just like he belongs there, just another customer. And even if the staff on duty don't recognize you, for all they know you checked in when they were off shift

Discretion is everyone's responsibility

A quick rambling

RG

Absolutely. And, of course, it's always worth finding little details out from the lady you're about to see so you know where you're going - so that you can walk in the front door and straight to the elevator rather than looking around for it, and then know whether to turn left or right when you get out... it all helps with flying under the radar, and than helps everyone.

Outcalls are legal. And Please don't make personal or misleading comments fortunateone!!!! And who said so many SPs come and visit my house!!!! Less than one guest per weekend (on average) is not considered so many in my book!! Not to mention that you commented (falsely) on my personal life!!!.

Please read the following comments by TWO cerb valued members:

Providing sex for money in a provider's venue is illegal, since that would make their home/hotel room/etc a Bawdy House. As far as technical illegality, all it takes is one client, and the nature of the place otherwise (residential vs commercial, for example) is irrelevant. Providing sex for money in a client's private venue (home/hotel room/etc) is legal.

 

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/

If a provider rents a hotel room and sees clients there, the first one she sees is considered to be a private visit. It is only when she sees more than one person in that room, for business purposes, that the place becomes a bawdy house .

And see comments by mod (the rep point given by mod in post number 3 of the link below ...

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=25973

where mod says "outcall prostitution is 100% legal in Canada".

And I can quote more if you wish.......

Outcalls are legal.

If the lady is booked through an agency, or hires a security guard or driver to help with her outcall, then a criminal act has taken place. Outcalls get us around the bawdy-house law, but that is not the only law relating to prostitution.

I googled this question: "Is having prostitutes to your home considered running a common bawdy house?"

This was the first link that came up: http://www.walnet.org/csis/legal_tips/trials/bawdybiz.html

On that link I found the following:

Out-calls

Prostitution itself (exchanging sex for money) is not illegal in Canada. Going to see a date at his hotel room or home is okay. In theory, a date could be charged with keeping a bawdy-house if he has pros over regularly. This means that you could be charged with being an inmate or found-in if you were caught in his home. This rarely, if ever, happens.

If the lady is booked through an agency' date=' or hires a security guard or driver to help with her outcall, then a criminal act has taken place. Outcalls get us around the bawdy-house law, but that is not the only law relating to prostitution.[/quote']

 

You are correct but the criminal act is not committed by the client in this case, but rather by agency and/or driver (living off the avails of prostitution). None of the prostitution laws in Canada make seeing an escort at client house a criminal act by client (provided phones or emails have been used in arranging the date/appointment).

 

Renting a hotel room for the purpose of seeing clients, is incall, not outcall. Incall doesn't mean a private location like studio, house or appartement.

 

Actually Malika renting a hotel room by client is OUTCALL and so is seeing escorts in client's private residence. But yes seeing an escort in a hotel room rented by the SP is incall (nobody said it is outcall).

 

Out-calls

 

Prostitution itself (exchanging sex for money) is not illegal in Canada. Going to see a date at his hotel room or home is okay. In theory, a date could be charged with keeping a bawdy-house if he has pros over regularly. This means that you could be charged with being an inmate or found-in if you were caught in his home. This rarely, if ever, happens.

 

Thank you for the link. It is not unexpected that if a client uses his place like a bawdy house it is possible that it could be regarded by law as a bawdy house. The definition of regularly in the article written by someone based on her/his interpretation of the law (it is not a clause in the law itself) is subjective and debated and hard to prove however, my personal example would be inviting a group of people (hobbyists and SPs) to have a group sex, or even may be duos and trios consecutively (one client and several SPs at the same time) or using home as a swingers club, especially is money is made by owner.......I don't believe having an SP over, every week or month would fit the definition of regularly.