The Porn Dude

Visiting a lady in a room...is it legal?

cruiser

New member
Mar 17, 2007
429
0
0
I'm in Edmonton and am planning on visiting a lady at her room.....she advertised on the 'net...I connected with her and am planning to go and see her..

My question....(I usually do the MP scene)...what is the legality of going to a ladies room? Do I have to worry about getting busted? Literally?

I was doing some google searches and am seeing different responses......

I'm just thinking of that Alberta government person who got caught in July in Minnesota because he responded to an ad on BP.

Granted we aren't in Minnesota..we are in Alberta/Edmonton.

Appreciate any feedback...from either the ladies or the guys.

Ladies who work out of hotels...and guys who have gone to hotels.

The hotel in question is a higher end hotel....not a $50 dive....

Feedback please...........
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
Just as legal as an MP.
 

cruiser

New member
Mar 17, 2007
429
0
0
ok..thanks....wasn't sure if it's different because its a 'room' and not a licensed establishment...
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,132
44
48
Montréal
Technically, neither are legal.

MP's have license for massage not for sexual services.

What is legal and what is tolerated are not the same.

The only thing that is officially not illegal is an outcall to a location that is not used more than once by the person. That means a client's hotel room, if he has only one sp visit while he is staying there and I assume the same would apply to the client's home. Not sure if it's still the same if there are repeated visits by the same or different sp's, though.

But an MP is not legally licensed to offer sexual services, it's just tolerated.





The Canadian Criminal Code (CCC) outlines what is illegal in Canada. It overrides all provincial laws or municipal bylaws. Places and activities bringing you in conflict with the law:


1. Public Places (s.213 “communicating”, s.173 “indecent act”, s.167 “indecent performance”)

In a public place it is illegal to negotiate paid sex and/or engage in sexual activities. A public place is one the public has access to, or that is open to the public/public view (e.g., hotel lobbies, bars, cars, street corners, etc.). It may include pay and cell phone conversations.

It is also illegal in a public place to be part of an indecent, immoral or obscene performance (s.167). What is indecent, immoral or obscene is decided when a case goes to court. Dancers are most likely to be charged under s.167 or s.173.


2. Third Party Activities (s.212 “procuring”)

This applies to the activities of anyone who introduces a person into prostitution (procuring), sets up a date between a sex worker and a client, and/or makes money from a sex worker (procuring and/or “pimping”).


Illegal acts include:

• Directing, bringing someone to, and/or confining or hiding someone in a bawdy house (see “In-call Services” for definition of a bawdy house).
• Encouraging, forcing or attempting to force someone to engage in sex work in or outside of Canada.
• Controlling, directing or influencing the movements of a person (including by drugging them) to get them to engage in sex work. While you may live totally or partly on the money you earn as a sex worker, it is illegal for others to do so.


3. In-call services (s.210 & s.211 “bawdy house”)

A bawdy house is a place where sexual services or indecent acts (see #1 above for definition of indecent acts) regularly occur (e.g., brothels, dungeons, massage parlours, strip clubs, homes or business locations of sex workers). A bawdy house can be a place where one or a number of sex workers provide sexual service. You can be charged if you:

• Are found, work, or live in a bawdy house
• Take, offer to take, or direct someone to a bawdy house
• Are in full or partial charge or control of a bawdy house. This is the more serious of the charges under s.210.



Each province can make laws to control anything that occurs within its borders. Provincial laws therefore can differ from province to province. They deal with a number of things including: roads and traffic, public places, social assistance, places of work (e.g., building codes, fire safety, job related health and safety issues, etc.). Enforcement patterns often vary.


Provincial laws and sex workers:

• Police can use traffic laws (e.g., interfering with traffic, stopping a moving vehicle) to harass workers.
• If your landlord suspects or knows something illegal is being done on the premises, you can be evicted.
• The court can close a place where in-call services occur.
• If you drop used condoms, needles, or broken glass, etc. in a public place, you may be charged with littering.
• If you are on social assistance, you are required to report any money you earn, even from sex work (see Money Matters).
• Laws dealing with places of work (e.g., building codes, fire safety, job related health and safety issues, etc.) can protect indoor workers who are working legally. But:

• They are difficult to enforce.
• They only apply to employees, not independent workers/contractors (see Money Matters for definitions of these terms).
• They require you to give your name.
• It is hard to find out where to file a complaint.
• The problem usually has to be really bad before action will be taken.

These laws vary from city to city and can be used to license sex workers or sex work businesses (e.g., escort, exotic dancing, body rub) or zone where such businesses (e.g., escort service offices, massage parlours, strip clubs) are located. You can still be charged with crimes even if you have a licence.


Municipal bylaws can:

• Restrict who gets a license. Working without one can result in bylaw charges. When new to a city or type of work, it is a good idea to check (anonymously!) with the local licensing office to see if a license is needed.
• Restrict where places such as body rub parlours, strip clubs and escort agencies are located.
• Potentially provide protection for indoor workers (e.g., cleanliness and safety of work place) but are difficult to enforce.
• Result in either increased or decreased police harassment, depending on the political climate.

http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/sociology/maticka/star/pdfs/law_matters_prnt.pdf

S. 210 and 211 “The Bawdy-house Provisions”

This section of the Criminal Code makes it illegal for anyone to run a bawdy-house, work in a bawdy-house, be found in a bawdy-house or allow someone else to run a bawdy-house.

A bawdy-house* is defined as anyplace used ‘for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency.’ This means a brothel or any place used regularly by one ore more people, including a hotel room, your home or even the same parking lot.

‘For the purpose of prostitution’ can mean doing anything with the intention of turning on or offering sex to a client in exchange for money. Offering sex includes saying you will do something sexual, saying you have sex with other clients, or touching yourself in a sexual manner.

Often police will go undercover posing as clients using different officers on different days to show a bawdy-house exists, or they will observe people coming or going from a certain location regularly.


Keeping a common bawdy house:

If police obtain a warrant* and enter a location on suspicion of it being a bawdy-house, they can arrest anyone who is inside. Those considered to be the ‘managers’ or owners of in-call services can be charged with ‘keeping a common bawdy-house,’ S. 210(1). This person does not have to own or rent the space. It is enough to have ads, a land phone line, or keys to the place. This is an indictable offence*, meaning a conviction can lead to imprisonment for up to two years, though most people receive a fine.

As bawdy-houses are businesses and make money, running one can be considered an ‘enterprise crime*,’ meaning any money earned and anything bought with that money could be considered ‘proceeds of crime*.’ You could be charged with ‘possession of the proceeds of crime’ and all of these items could be seized unless you can prove you bought them with money you earned legally.


Inmate of a common bawdy house:

People found living or working in a bawdy-house can be charged with being an ‘inmate of a common bawdy house,’ S. 210(2)(a). People visiting a bawdy-house can be charged with ‘being found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house,’ S. 210(2)(a). This is also a summary offence* and is often used to prosecute clients, as well as receptionists and maids.

Knowingly permitting the premises to be used as a common bawdy-house:
If you own or rent a property and allow it to be used as a bawdy-house you can be charged with ‘knowingly permitting the premises to be used as a common bawdy-house,’ S. 210(2)(c).

The offences of being an inmate of a bawdy-house, being found in a bawdy house without lawful excuse, and knowingly permitting the premises to be used as a bawdy-house are summary offences that can lead to a sentence of up to 6 months in prison or a fine up to $2000.

If you work regularly out of your rented apartment or home and your landlord finds out, you are likely to be evicted as landlords can be charged under S. 210(2)(c). Landlords are allowed to evict tenants if they become aware that illegal activities are taking place on the property.


S. 211 makes it illegal to take someone, or offer to take someone, to a place that you know is a bawdy-house or to even tell someone where a bawdy-house is.



Adults exchanging sex for money is not illegal in Canada. Going to see a client at his home or a hotel room is not illegal. If this client regularly has sex workers over to the same place though, you both could be charged under the bawdy-house provisions if you are found there, though this rarely happens.



http://tradesecretsguide.blogspot.ca/2009/11/law-and-sex-work_14.html


More info:
http://www.walnet.org/csis/legal_tips/trials/bawdybiz.html
http://www.walnet.org/csis/legal_tips/trials/index2.html
 
Last edited:

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
Technically, neither are legal.

MP's have license for massage not for sexual services.

What is legal and what is tolerated are not the same.

The only thing that is officially not illegal is an outcall to a location that is not used more than once by the person. That means a client's hotel room, if he has only one sp visit while he is staying there and I assume the same would apply to the client's home. Not sure if it's still the same if there are repeated visits by the same or different sp's, though.

But an MP is not legally licensed to offer sexual services, it's just tolerated.












More info:
http://www.walnet.org/csis/legal_tips/trials/bawdybiz.html
http://www.walnet.org/csis/legal_tips/trials/index2.html

Um...no. Right on the outcall being legal, but not on the restrictions. My home, my room...I can have as many SPs as I want visiting, as often as I want. Nothing illegal about that. If I let my home/room be used by the SP to see other clients...then it becomes a bawdy house situation.
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,132
44
48
Montréal
Um...no. Right on the outcall being legal, but not on the restrictions. My home, my room...I can have as many SPs as I want visiting, as often as I want. Nothing illegal about that. If I let my home/room be used by the SP to see other clients...then it becomes a bawdy house situation.


Um, that's not what the Trade Secrets website says. It's a little hard to confirm it since it's not really enforced either way.


Adults exchanging sex for money is not illegal in Canada. Going to see a client at his home or a hotel room is not illegal. If this client regularly has sex workers over to the same place though, you both could be charged under the bawdy-house provisions if you are found there, though this rarely happens.

http://tradesecretsguide.blogspot.ca/2009/11/law-and-sex-work_14.html



A bawdy-house* is defined as anyplace used ‘for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency.’ This means a brothel or any place used regularly by one ore more people, including a hotel room, your home or even the same parking lot.
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
And the Trades Secrets Website is what a judge refers to when making a decision...?
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,489
8
38
on yer ignore list
didn't you know? all the bloggers there are practising judges...
 

newatit

Member
Jan 31, 2011
747
9
18
I beleive there was a court ruling that an SP working from her own room that she paid for and lived in was not illegal nor did it fit into the definitions of bawdy house etc. A person has a right to work from their home. Not sure if a trick pad falls into that definition or not, and hey today is the ruling day on Canada's laws is it not?
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
didn't you know? all the bloggers there are practising judges...

Damn......I didn't know that. I love it when people post links to prove a point and don't bother to read them, or maybe they just can't understand them.
 

Ms Erica Phoenix

Satisfaction Provider
Jun 24, 2013
5,314
7
0
60
In Your Wildest Dreams!
I beleive there was a court ruling that an SP working from her own room that she paid for and lived in was not illegal nor did it fit into the definitions of bawdy house etc. A person has a right to work from their home. Not sure if a trick pad falls into that definition or not, and hey today is the ruling day on Canada's laws is it not?
The ruling has come down. All 3 laws are unconstitutional; the government has 1 year to come up with an alternative...or not.
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,132
44
48
Montréal
didn't you know? all the bloggers there are practising judges...
And the Trades Secrets Website is what a judge refers to when making a decision...?
Damn......I didn't know that. I love it when people post links to prove a point and don't bother to read them, or maybe they just can't understand them.

Pffff. If either of you is going to complain about the lack of legal sources, maybe you should provide some of your own!

Are you kidding me? what did you provide as a source? Nothing. Right. I didn't start arguing with you because obviously I'm not a lawyer and since it's not usually enforced anyway, how would I know the specifics? But the thing is.. Neither do you. And you didn't even bother trying to find some kind of mention that might indicate what you say has any chance of being right. Have you found a practising lawyer or judge to name a case you can refer to?


And finally, Trade Secrets is not just 'a blogger' and I think Susi would strongly disagree with you calling it that. :rolleyes:




Message from Project Coordinator
We developed this guide with the help of experts in the field of sex industry health and safety (workers and business owners), as well as non-industry legal and health experts.

The Trade Secrets Community Group – an advisory committee convened for the purpose of representing diverse perspectives, vetted all suggestions made in the guide to this end.


The production of Trade Secrets could not have been possible without the following people, businesses, organizations, and other sources. Not every contributor is listed here. We attempted to ensure that we had permission from every contributor to list their name here. So if we did not hear back, we did not include their names.


Key Contributors

BC Coalition of Experiential Communities Members

Coalition members took part in every process including but not limited to: recruiting and interviewing contributors through one-on-one meetings and focus groups, writing, evaluating, and editing throughout the project.

Kathleen Cherrington
Susan Davis
Matthew Taylor
Ryann Rain
Laurel Irons
Chanel Martin
Trina Ricketts
Christal Capostinsky

...

Organizations

PACE Society
PIVOT Legal Society
BC Centre for Disease Control STI/HIV Outreach Program

...

http://tradesecretsguide.blogspot.ca/search/label/About the Project



No offence but it wouldn't hurt either of you to actually check these things out before talking out of your asses.

Again, I'm not claiming to have the truth, I'm not a lawyer but incidentally, neither are you. I'm open to whatever happens to be the true legal answer but until you have anything more than 'because I say so' to support your claim, I'll stick with the answer provided by Trade Secrets, which was written with the collaboration of legal professionals.

Not that it really even matters because a) it's not enforced and b) it soon won't even be relevant or applicable (at least for the time being)

What was that you were saying about me? That I always pick something to disagree with just for the sake of arguing? Right. Hi Pot, I'm kettle...






I beleive there was a court ruling that an SP working from her own room that she paid for and lived in was not illegal nor did it fit into the definitions of bawdy house etc. A person has a right to work from their home. Not sure if a trick pad falls into that definition or not, and hey today is the ruling day on Canada's laws is it not?

Before today's ruling, a person working out of their own home is still considered to be working out of a bawdy house. Read the descriptions in the above quotes. If a girl has received a client - it's considered a bawdy house.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
Um...no. Right on the outcall being legal, but not on the restrictions. My home, my room...I can have as many SPs as I want visiting, as often as I want. Nothing illegal about that. If I let my home/room be used by the SP to see other clients...then it becomes a bawdy house situation.
Not true. A "baudy house" is pretty broadly defined, and if they really wanted to they could still get you on that even if in your own home. That would never happen in reality however, since a charge still has to be proven and an arrest still requires probable cause, both of which would be very difficult to obtain outside of some sort of a targeted sting. It simply would not be worthwhile for law enforcement to go to all the trouble of doing that (unless you posed a risk to public safety, which is extremely unlikely), so they don't bother.
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
Pffff. If either of you is going to complain about the lack of legal sources, maybe you should provide some of your own!

Are you kidding me? what did you provide as a source? Nothing. Right. I didn't start arguing with you because obviously I'm not a lawyer and since it's not usually enforced anyway, how would I know the specifics? But the thing is.. Neither do you. And you didn't even bother trying to find some kind of mention that might indicate what you say has any chance of being right. Have you found a practising lawyer or judge to name a case you can refer to?


And finally, Trade Secrets is not just 'a blogger' and I think Susi would strongly disagree with you calling it that. :rolleyes:









No offence but it wouldn't hurt either of you to actually check these things out before talking out of your asses.

Again, I'm not claiming to have the truth, I'm not a lawyer but incidentally, neither are you. I'm open to whatever happens to be the true legal answer but until you have anything more than 'because I say so' to support your claim, I'll stick with the answer provided by Trade Secrets, which was written with the collaboration of legal professionals.

Not that it really even matters because a) it's not enforced and b) it soon won't even be relevant or applicable (at least for the time being)

What was that you were saying about me? That I always pick something to disagree with just for the sake of arguing? Right. Hi Pot, I'm kettle...









Before today's ruling, a person working out of their own home is still considered to be working out of a bawdy house. Read the descriptions in the above quotes. If a girl has received a client - it's considered a bawdy house.
Not true. A "baudy house" is pretty broadly defined, and if they really wanted to they could still get you on that even if in your own home. That would never happen in reality however, since a charge still has to be proven and an arrest still requires probable cause, both of which would be very difficult to obtain outside of some sort of a targeted sting. It simply would not be worthwhile for law enforcement to go to all the trouble of doing that (unless you posed a risk to public safety, which is extremely unlikely), so they don't bother.

An interesting read on development of Bawdy-House law and the elements that need be present.

http://www.rdo-olr.uottawa.ca/index2.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=dd_download&fid=678&Itemid=842

( It opens as a pdf file, or at least should. If it doesn't, Google, J Stewart Russell Bawdy House. )

Your link Ms Bj.

http://www.walnet.org/csis/legal_tips/trials/bawdybiz.html

Keeping a common-bawdy house is an enterprise crime---police think you are making money..etc.

So maybe one of you can explain how the owner of the home or renter of the room makes any money by paying a hooker to come to his room/home and fuck his brains out ?

Yes,, further in the article is does go into what might happen in theory, but we're not talking about that...we're talking about reality.
 
Last edited:
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts