How will Bill C-36 affect your hobbying?

[gugu]

. Now, simply communicating in order to gain access to that incall is a crime and it can be an indictable offense. You can in theory be arrested long before you even go to the place or months afterward. In reality the odds of getting arrested are probably not worse, but on a psychological level the new law is more scary for the clients.

286.1 is as follow:

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of,
(i) in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $2,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $4,000, or
(ii) in any other case,
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and a minimum punishment of,
(i) in the case referred to in subparagraph (a)(i),
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000, or
(ii) in any other case,
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $500, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $1,000.

It looks like it can be one or the other. I don't know on what ground the prosecutor decides it's one or the other. Any idea? Or is it indictable if it's near kids, summary otherwise?

In regard with the specific bawdy house case you refer to, 212 was repealed. My understanding is that you may well be found in one, they'd need to accuse you of buying sex, not just being there (I may be wrong again).

Finally, I agree there is a significant difference in consequences between these two types of convictions, the freedom of movement among others. However both come with a criminal record.

 

[gugu]

What is safer in your opinion ?

Incall hotel or incall in sp's appt ? I'd say incall appt.

Outcall in your appt or outcall hotel ? I'd say outcall appt.

Indy you already know or agency ? I'd say Indy I know.

Massage parlour or Indy you know incall ? I'd say Indy incall.

I guess:

For her: sp's appt, hotel, indy,mp
For you: hotel,your appt, no difference, no difference

 

[Siocnarf]

It looks like it can be one or the other. I don't know on what ground the prosecutor decides it's one or the other. Any idea? Or is it indictable if it's near kids, summary otherwise?

In regard with the specific bawdy house case you refer to, 212 was repealed. My understanding is that you may well be found in one, they'd need to accuse you of buying sex, not just being there (I may be wrong again).

Finally, I agree there is a significant difference in consequences between these two types of convictions, the freedom of movement among others. However both come with a criminal record.

It's called a ''dual'' or ''hybrid'' offense. Many crimes are like that, including drunk driving. It is treated as an indictable offense until the crown makes a decision. So when arrested you are photographed and fingerprinted (so you have a record of arrest). Then the prosecutor decides how to prosecute, but I don't know on what basis. My feeling is that it's unlikely to be indictment unless there is some aggravating circumstances.
https://www.defencelaw.com/classification.html

I also have the feeling that it will now be more difficult to get evidence for conviction. Just being in a place where they sometimes sell sex is not a crime in itself. They have to prove that you were trying to do that. In the past if they had proof that an MP was also a brothel you were just a guilty even if you were there just for a massage. But like I say, I think you will have a record of arrest even if it doesn't go to court, which would not have been the case for a summary offense under the previous law.

On that note, I wonder if the DPCP will release some official guidelines on how they will treat those laws, or if that remains more informal?

 

[Siocnarf]

If they do, I think they might end up being posted here:

http://www.dpcp.gouv.qc.ca/documentation/directives-directeurs.aspx

Thanks!

En fait à cette page il y a des directives sur les poursuites hybrides:
http://www.dpcp.gouv.qc.ca/ressources/pdf/envoi/ACC-5-M.pdf

 

[BookerL]

Interesting statistic about criminal lawyer fees

GREETINGS

If any of you would like to no approximate amount a trial would cost ,there is some stats

http://www.baghdadilaw.com/2012/08/criminal-lawyer-fees-the-going-rate/


CRIMINAL LAWYER FEES – THE GOING RATE
Posted on August 9, 2012
Canadian Lawyer magazine conducts a yearly survey of legal fees in Canada. Of particular interest to me and my clients are the statistics collected with respect to Criminal Lawyers both nationally and in the province of Quebec. Here are the relevant findings for 2012:

NATIONAL FEE RANGES

Summary criminal offence (one-day trial):

min: $ 3,385

max: $ 6,144

average: $ 3,746

Bail hearing:

min: $ 684

max: $ 2,164

average: $ 989

Criminal offence (one-day trial):

min: $ 2,991

max: $ 7,524

average: $ 4,155

ATLANTIC /QUEBEC FEE RANGES

Summary criminal offence (one-day trial) :

min: $ 2,209

max: $ 6,136

average: $ 3,216

Bail hearing:

min: $ 613

max: $ 2,531

average: $ 1,094

Criminal offence (one-day trial) :

min: $ 2,500

max: $ 8,111

average: $ 3,600

Robert Macaire, Avocat
‘My dear Bertrand, give me a hundred crowns and I’ll get you acquitted right away. –No, I’ve no money. –All right, give me a hundred francs. –I haven’t a penny. –You don’t even have ten francs? –Not a farthing. –Then give me your boots, and I’ll plead extenuating circumstances.’

NATIONAL HOURLY RATES

Years of Experience

1 year: $ 229

5 years: $ 283

10 years : $ 340

20 years : $ 408

More than 20 years: $ 414

ATLANTIC / QUEBEC HOURLY RATES

Years of Experience

1 year: $ 239

5 years: $ 310

10 years : $ 332

20 years : $ 403

More than 20 years: $ 386


Cheers



Booker

 

[brotz]

the biggest concern is the agencies having all client info, phone number, address for outcalls. What's to say that if the agencies get cornered by LE that they will not just hand over all their database of clients with detailed info? Agencies would make that trade off in a heartbeat to avoid arrest. Next thing you know you're on a LE list... So who you trust becomes very important but when push comes to shove would any agency protect you? I'd rather not find out.

 

[BookerL]

Posts like yours confuse me.

Hi Patron and all
You are so right confusion ,who will benefit from that confusion?

It will not be illegal under c-36 to pay an escort, nor will it be illegal to operate an escort agency. Are you suggesting that the agency will maintain a list of all sexual acts the escort performed during the session? I do not think that happens now, and if definitely will not happen after Dec. 5..

Sadly it is not what the law says that counts ,its what the arrested parties believe it says when they are placed it the pressure cooker ,having been caught their hands in the cookie jar.

No savant analysis on this board will be of any help if LE places the fear of God in a atheist ,historically people bow down on LE ,its a fact of life .

A john arrested is shown a video as proof of money transfer ,what will be is first reaction ?
Will he be thinking admissibility of the proof?
Or even beyond a reasonable doubt ?
LE are master liars ,what they say looks real

Being a name on the list will mean nothing, since paying an escort is not illegal.

Its called circumstantial evidence ,on its own ,it might not be to reveling ,but lots of circumstantial evidence can get someone to plea bargain because he does not have the money to pay for a defense lawyer .

I do suspect, and even hope, that specific upsells for Greed CIM will go away as part of agency advertising. Of course nothing will stop the escort from upselling in the room, but I seriously doubt if will be in anyone's best interest for the agreed upon session to be Plus $80 for Greek prior to her even arriving to the room.

The interest of everyone is to stay calm and remain silent if the worst happens


Cheers



Booker

 

[brotz]

Posts like yours confuse me. It will not be illegal under c-36 to pay an escort, nor will it be illegal to operate an escort agency.

You are confused Patron. Paying for a sexual act and receiving a financial benefit from a sexual service i.e. johns and agencies are both illegal under c-36... here's a good summary:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-everything-you-need-to-know/article19610318/

 

[EastRL0000]

Omg !! What you do if your accused of a crime is "keep yo pie hole shut"..

You Know nothing ! Not even what time it is or where you are or who that women is .. Not sure even what country I'm in ..

Name ! Rank and title ! If forced . Say your grandfather is a lawyer you would like see him (though he died in 01) say nothing but L word. Or I'd like see my lawyer ... Mr lawyer on lawyer lane ...

 

[daydreamer41]

I think not. You are equating the term escort with a prostitute. If that were the case, it would be illegal per se to operate an escort service. It is NOT. One of the reasons it is not illegal, is that a prohibition of the exchange of time for money would make lots of businesses illegal, including consulting and therapy. It is NOT illegal, even under c-86, to hire an escort.

What is illegal for the customer under c-86 is the solicitation of sex for money and the actual purchase of sex for money. That may indeed be what the customer in fact does with the escort, but the mere purchase of the escort's time is not illegal. Even the backwards U.S. Has never tried to outlaw escort agencies, although some jurisdictions levy a huge license fee for operating one.

It is more than just a minor distinction. To violate c-86, there must be proof of sex for money. Not proof of merely hiring an escort. After December 5, you will still see escort service businesses. That will still be a legal business to operate. You will not see "Kim's marijuana sales and service". That would be illegal per se, and would be shut down immediately.

Well, is C-86 a new new law? I thought C-36 was the new law?

Anyhow, change your nickname, Patron. It's now illegal to be a Patron. I am joking Patron.

C-36 prohibits the purchase of sex, plain and simple. How they are going to enforce is anybody's guess. But if they find that a person pays for sex, they could arrest you. It's plain and simple as that. Proving it in court may be a little more difficult.

For me, going to Canada for SP's is not an incentive any more. It's just as illegal in the US as Canada. I really don't feel like going to another country to break the law. That's me and my risk tolerance. I know it's different for every person. I am hoping that C-36 finds it's way back to the Supreme Court of Canada and they strike it down like they did the last law.

 

[shyguy2222]

I am hearing this over and over. Somehow you can't be arrested unless they catch you actually exchanging money for sex. This is the attitude that will get you arrested. Simply showing up at a known incall location or exiting a known incall location will get you arrested. Its pretty obvious what you are doing there and this is how law enforcement works. Just look at recent busts in Canada where johns got busted. There was no exchange of money and no sex, but they still got arrested.

Good luck

 

[gugu]

shyguy, the old section 210 permitted an arrest fro the simple fact of being present in a bawdy house. Now bawdy houses have been redefinined in regards with indecency laws, not prostitution. So they need either a proof or a confession. In Sweden, if we believe the police,the way it works is they they stop the client exiting the incall. They tell him they know he was paying for sex and they offer an alternative: you either confess, then you'll have to pay a fixed statuary fine or we bring you to court where the cases are public. Just about all the guys choose the first option. Trials for this offense are very rare because of that.

If Le chose to go after clients at the entrance of incalls — the swedish police does it once in while but not that often because they leave alone indys most of the time f they are swedish origine — , they could easily make 2000 to 3000 arrests each year in Canada. But they will not for two simple reasons: 1 LE got no new resources contrary to the swedish police and 2 whatever the law, prostitution remains a low level type criminality. Resources are allocated for its repression accordingly.

 

[Dorftrottel]

Well, that's the end. The primary attraction to me as a hobbyist of Montreal was the legality. That party is now over. Canada will see a lot fewer of my tourist dollars from here on out. From now on I'll hobby in Central America. Costa Rica is nice, or at least it will be until the SWERFs shut that down too.

 

[man77777]

Well, that's the end. The primary attraction to me as a hobbyist of Montreal was the legality. That party is now over. Canada will see a lot fewer of my tourist dollars from here on out. From now on I'll hobby in Central America. Costa Rica is nice, or at least it will be until the SWERFs shut that down too.

We will all miss you, Dorftrottel...

 

[opus]

If prostitution is legal, but paying for sex isn't, the girls could always sell us a beer (or a stick of gum) for $180 or thereabouts, and then throw in the sex for free ...

How's that for a workaround?!?

 

[Numerati]

Well my hobbying is not going to stop but it will be situated indoors as opposed to doing dinner dates at times. Really sucks though. The outside social aspect of an encounter enhances things.