For the purposes of s. 173(1) of Canada's Criminal Code, does a private vehicle on a public road constitute a public place?

[GoCanucks16]

s. 173(1) is of course governed by/pursuant to the definition of "public place" outlined in s. 150, which is as follows:

 

Quote

public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

 

I have already determined through research that "access" in this context means physical and not merely visual access, or at least I am reasonably sure of this.

 

Now, clearly a private vehicle is not somewhere the general public has access to by right nor invitation. But I am curious if there's a weird twist of logic somewhere that considers vehicles in public places to be public places themselves despite this not being readily apparent in a strict reading of the law.

 

s. 213(2), as we all know, defines "public place" for a separate offence. I have quoted this definition immediately below:

 

Quote

In this section,

public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.

 

This is probably trickier than is at first apparent. But if a motor vehicle located in a public place is expressly defined as meeting the definition of a "public place" in this section of the Code, does it not follow that through the omission of any similar phrasing in s. 150 we are to believe that, for the purposes of s. 173(1), motor vehicles located in public places are not to be considered as public places and as such it is not possible to commit an indecent act in a private motor vehicle?

 

I really need an answer to this so any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Edited March 30, 2021 by GoCanucks16

[Canuck Surfer]

Did someone get caught playing Wang Dang Doodle? 

[GoCanucks16]

Accidentally put this in White Noise. If a mod could move it to off-topic I'd be happy.

[GoCanucks16]

Apparently it is really tricky. Found this:

 

[33]      On appeal, after considering R. v. Clark, in that case the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Pennett, J. held that:

There is nothing in the Clark decision that would suggest that Sloan, supra, has been overruled, and accordingly, the trial judge is entitled to consider the underlying circumstances regarding the use of the vehicle.

[34]      Further, it was held:

I conclude that whether an act takes place within a motor vehicle is an act committed in a "public place" or in private is a question of fact to be inferred from all of the surrounding circumstances.  In R. v. Clark, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada considered an act which occurred in the living room of a private home, which obviously, of itself, is a private place.  The court concluded the fact that there may be visual access to the interior of a living room would not, of itself, change the nature of a living room into a "public place."  The same cannot be said of a motor vehicle because of its very nature and the fact the motor vehicle may be located from time to time in a variety of locations and in a wide variety of circumstances.  Whether it is a public place or private place will depend on the location of the vehicle and the circumstances in which it is found.  In my view, the observations of the court in the Clark decisions are confined to the facts of that case; a living room in a private home, or to facts which are reasonably similar.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

if your caught canoodling in your living room, where you can at least argue that "no-one from the street should be able to see me" and also at the same time argue looking into your windows is a invasion of your own privacy.

 

 

context matters, if your vehicle was in your garage and where you can at least argue that "no-one from the street should be able to see me" and also at the same time argue looking into your garage is a invasion of your own privacy.

 

but if the vehicle is in the driveway, and visible to the street and/or your neighbors, you will never be able to argue looking into your car is a invasion of your own privacy because in todays society neighbourhood crime watch is considered a reasonable way to fight crime.

 

In general cars have never been deemed acceptable places to be nude or fornicate because vehicles other than RV'S don't offer any reasonable privacy, BUT put up some curtains in your car and you have the case for privacy.

 

Don't get caught with your pants down around your ankles.

 

 

 

[Davathor]

2 hours ago, GoCanucks16 said:

s. 173(1) is of course governed by/pursuant to the definition of "public place" outlined in s. 150, which is as follows:

 

 

I have already determined through research that "access" in this context means physical and not merely visual access, or at least I am reasonably sure of this.

 

Now, clearly a private vehicle is not somewhere the general public has access to by right nor invitation. But I am curious if there's a weird twist of logic somewhere that considers vehicles in public places to be public places themselves despite this not being readily apparent in a strict reading of the law.

 

s. 213(2), as we all know, defines "public place" for a separate offence. I have quoted this definition immediately below:

 

 

This is probably trickier than is at first apparent. But if a motor vehicle located in a public place is expressly defined as meeting the definition of a "public place" in this section of the Code, does it not follow that through the omission of any similar phrasing in s. 150 we are to believe that, for the purposes of s. 173(1), motor vehicles located in public places are not to be considered as public places and as such it is not possible to commit an indecent act in a private motor vehicle?

 

I really need an answer to this so any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

Well, I never challenged the case, but I mooned a friend at a crosswalk back in my glory days, as a cop pulled up to the stop sign. He almost threw book at me. No seat belt, indecent exposure, public indecency... ended up dropping to just no seat belt - what saved me was I had a Canadian military key lanyard and he didn't want to ruin my chances of enlisting (lied and said I intended to)

 

So.. what body part did you expose? 

[Gurn]

Have you sent an email to Toronto Blue Jay catcher  Reese "Pieces" McGuire?

He may have upto date info.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/04/video-of-reese-mcguires-masturbation-arrest-what-an-idiot/

"The 25-year-old McGuire pleaded no contest and was fined $450 after initially being charged with exposure of sexual organs, a first-degree misdemeanor which is punishable by up to one year in jail and carries fines up to $1,000."

[Davathor]

Post on Reddit r/legaladvice, good info comes out of there and if its a funny story you'll get lots of feedback and people checking info on advice in comments

 

[Lancaster]

So... what's the context here?  Or do we don't want to know?