Supreme Court restores conviction of B.C. hockey coach who took changeroom photos of young players

In a landmark rulingon voyeurism issued Friday,theSupreme Court of Canada has restored the conviction of a British Columbia sports coach who took pictures of his players in a hockey dressing room.

In restoring the conviction, the court ruled that change rooms are safe spaces and taking photographs of children in that setting not only violates their "privacy but also their sexual integrity."

At the centre of the case is Randy William Downes, whocoached hockey and baseballin B.C.'s Lower Mainland. Healso ran a sports photography business.

A B.C. court convictedDownesin 2019on two counts of voyeurism after he was found to have taken 38photos of two adolescent hockey playershe coached, aged 12 and 14, in a changing room.

The boys were in various states of undress in the photographsbut were not nude. The trial judge found that the boys had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the changing room, which Downes violated.

Section162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code says a person may be convicted of voyeurism if the person photographed or recorded "is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude."

B.C.'sCourt of Appealoverturned Downes'sconviction in 2022 and ordered a new trial. Justice Peter Willcockwrote in the majoritydecision that the prior judgmentdid not consider whether the photos were taken at a time when nuditycould reasonably be expected in the dressing room.

In his reasons for judgment, Willcockwrote that there's a shortage of case law to cite ons.162(1)(a). The question before the Supreme Court was whethers.162(1)(a) considers the timing of photos or recordings to be relevant.

Russell Brown does not participate in ruling

The court ruled unanimously that it's not relevant. Itset aside the Court of Appeal decision and restored Downes'convictions.

"In effect, s. 162(1)(a) designates places such as bedrooms, bathroomsand dressing rooms as 'safe places' where people should be free from intrusions onto their privacy and sexual integrity,"Justice MahmudJamal, writing on behalf of the court, said in the judgment.

"Taking surreptitious photographs of children in their underwear in an inherently 'safe place' like a hockey dressing room violates not only the children's privacy but also their sexual integrity, even if nudity was not reasonably expected when the photos were taken."

Jamal addedthat if Parliament had wanted timing to be relevant, it could have added thatlanguage ins.162(1)(a).

The judgment notes that Justice Russell Brown didn't participate in the final disposition.

The Canadian Judicial Council said earlier this week thatit is "reviewing a complaint" regarding Brown's conduct. Hehas been on leave from the court since Feb. 1 because of the complaint.

The Vancouver Sun reported Thursday that the complaint concerns Brown's conduct at an Arizona resort where he was a guest speaker. Brown told the paper in a statement that he would release a statement on the matter "soon."