Facts: Randy William Downes, a hockey coach, was convicted for taking photos of two adolescent boys in their underwear within hockey arena dressing rooms, leading to charges of voyeurism under s. 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
Issues:
Whether s. 162(1)(a) contains an implicit temporal component, requiring nudity to be reasonably expected at the specific time the photos were taken.
If s. 162(1)(a) lacks a temporal component, whether the provision is unconstitutionally overbroad under s. 7 of the Charter.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that s. 162(1)(a) does not have an implicit temporal component. Therefore, it is sufficient that the place is one where nudity could reasonably be expected at any time, not necessarily at the time of the offence. The appeal was allowed, restoring the convictions.
Amount Awarded: The case focused on legal interpretation and the validity of voyeurism charges, not on monetary damages.
