Nudism

Nudist colony to reinstate 'loner'
Man gets $12,000 for lost reputation, opportunity
A Vancouver Island nudist, who was ejected from his colony for failing to be sociable with the other nudists, has been ordered reinstated.
Photograph by : AP File Photo
Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail
Font: * * * * Richard Watts, Times Colonist
Published: Friday, December 08, 2006
A Vancouver Island nudist, who was ejected from his colony for failing to be sociable with the other nudists, has been ordered reinstated.

In a B.C. Supreme Court judgment yesterday, Justice Sunni Stromberg-Stein ordered Jerry Grenier be reinstated as a probationary member in the Sol Sante Club.

Stromberg-Stein also awarded him about $12,000 in damages, an award that included $10,000 for loss of reputation and opportunity, since the club is the only one of its kind on the Island.

The family oriented Sol Sante Club, which owns 178 acres in Cobble Hill, is said to rival the Butchart Gardens for beauty. There, its 170 members practise nudism and follow the principles of the International Nudist Federation.

Grenier became a probationary member on May 15, 2004. But on July 24, 2004, without any notice to him, the board of directors voted to rescind his membership for a number of reasons including:

- he didn't engage in social nudism;

- he was a loner who didn't socialize with other members;

- he had posted an advertisement on a bulletin board offering to pay a member's child to perform yard work.

Justice Stromberg-Stein ruled none of the complaints provided any foundation for expelling Grenier. She also wrote Grenier felt he had been unfairly characterized as a sexual predator.

Michael Frey, Grenier's lawyer, said all the accusations were easily disputed or contradicted once they came out in the open. "It was all sort of unstated and implied."

Frey said his client has spent most of his career as a military police officer. He now does security work for the International Criminal Court and is now working, likely in Africa.

Sol Sante members who, according to the judgment, are forbidden by club bylaws from publicly identifying themselves as members, could not be reached for comment.

http://www.sagacityg...vents/birthday/
:-P

"The family oriented Sol Sante Club, which owns 178 acres in Cobble Hill, is said to rival the Butchart Gardens for beauty."

Maybe his Peony wasn't up to size?!?

Awesome caption:



Kelowna RCMP Const. Stanviloff is satisfied as he leaves the scene after breaking up a naked photo shoot, but one of the models was not as pleased with the encounter.
Sean Connor/Capital News

Kelowna Capital News
Naked photo shoot on Knox Mtn busted by cops

A naked photography session on Knox Mountain was busted up by RCMP Friday afternoon.

The photo taking session was for XXO Okanagan Magazine.

I know this is a little off topic BUTT....

Ha ha! Get it?

Okay.

So how naked can I get at a public beach here in Victoria? Will I be arrested for wearing a thong? Going topless?

And I am a woman, if anyone is curious.

I believe that you can technically go topless as there was court challenge some years ago. In fact I believe that men and women can go topless pretty much anywhere they want.

For the full monty you have to go up to Prior Lake? I think?

So a thong and topless should be okay at Willows? I can't wait for next summer!

So a thong and topless should be okay at Willows? I can't wait for next summer!

That likely won't go unchallenged. You'll get a visit and a request from cops to cover up. Whether you do, and whether they insist, that's probably never been tested here.

Hmmmm, maybe that would be a fun test? I'll start off with the thong.

What can police do to you if it's not against the law?

What if in responce to, "Miss could you please cover up?"

They get a, "No thank you, my white ass needs some colour."

I hope I wouldn't get the tazer.

Here is the court decision that made it legal:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE, PLAINTIFF
AND:
LINDA ANNE MEYER, DEFENDANT
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES (IN CHAMBERS)

[54] Indecency is not defined in the Criminal Code. It is to be measured on an objective, national, community standard of tolerance. The standard of tolerance is not defined by what Canadians think it is right for them to see, rather it is what they would not abide other Canadians viewing. [Towne Cinema Theatres Ltd. v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 494].

[55] In R. v. Jacob, supra, a woman who walked bare-breasted on a city street and then reclined top-free on the front step to her home was acquitted on appeal of committing an indecent act. The Court found the baring of her breasts was not harmful to anyone. There was nothing degrading or dehumanizing in her conduct. The Court noted anyone who was offended was not forced to look.

[56] There is force to the defendant's argument that the impugned Section 3A of the Park By-Law by requiring women to cover their nipples and aureole while in a District park or recreation facility creates a stricter standard regarding nudity than exists in the Criminal Code. It imposes strict liability, is not subject to a community standard of tolerance test, and in the breach can lead to imprisonment. It also purports to criminalize the conduct of girls as young as nine years of age.

[57] I do not find in the evidence support for the view that the parks could not operate in orderly fashion if a female were to bare her breasts in a circumstance that did not offend criminal laws of nudity. The evidence suggests the Section 3A amendment to the Park By-Law was more a reaction to a frustration that the criminal law was not supporting the moral standards in regard to females who chose to bare their breasts in public that some Maple Ridge citizens desired.

[58] The Park By-Law in issue does not illustrate the clear valid provincial object that was found in Ontario Adult Entertainment Bar Association of Toronto (1997), 188 C.C.C. (3d) 481, 35 O.R. (3d) 161, or cases of similar circumstance. The evidence in Ontario Adult Entertainment, supra, indicated "lap dancing" created health and safety risks for dancers and the activity could encourage the commission of crimes.

[59] I find Section 3A to be lacking a clear provincial object, and taken in context of events existing at the time of its enactment suggests a colourable attempt to regulate morality and thus displace the federal jurisdiction in respect of criminal law.

[60] In my view, the "matter" or "pith and substance" of Section 3A of the Park By-Law places it within federal legislative competence as being a matter for the criminal law. It is not a matter which can be fairly described as property and civil rights [Constitution Act, s.92(13)] or a matter of a local and private nature [s.92(16)].

[61] I accept that the enforcement of a Park By-Law offence under the Offence Act does not lead to a characterization of a federal criminal law power. Provinces have an express ancillary power to impose punishment for the purpose of enforcing valid provincial laws under s.92(15) of the Constitution Act.

[62] Neither does the fact a valid by-law may be enforced with penal consequence aid in discovery of whether the by-law itself is inter vires the enacting jurisdiction.

[63] I find that the impugned Section 3A of the Park By-Law is ultra vires the legislative competence of Maple Ridge and the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration to that effect. I consider that in light of this finding I should not comment upon further issues of whether the Park By-Law if validly enacted would infringe upon Ms. Meyer's Charter Rights.

[64] The defendant's 18A application is allowed.

[65] I was advised the parties agree the counterclaim in this action be dismissed.

[66] I am unaware of any agreement of the parties regarding costs. In the absence of agreement to the contrary the defendant is entitled to her costs on Scale 3.



"R.R. Holmes, J."
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.R. Holmes

Here is the court decision that made it legal:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE, PLAINTIFF
AND:
LINDA ANNE MEYER, DEFENDANT
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES (IN CHAMBERS)

[54] Indecency is not defined in the Criminal Code. It is to be measured on an objective, national, community standard of tolerance. The standard of tolerance is not defined by what Canadians think it is right for them to see, rather it is what they would not abide other Canadians viewing. [Towne Cinema Theatres Ltd. v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 494].

[55] In R. v. Jacob, supra, a woman who walked bare-breasted on a city street and then reclined top-free on the front step to her home was acquitted on appeal of committing an indecent act. The Court found the baring of her breasts was not harmful to anyone. There was nothing degrading or dehumanizing in her conduct. The Court noted anyone who was offended was not forced to look.

[56] There is force to the defendant's argument that the impugned Section 3A of the Park By-Law by requiring women to cover their nipples and aureole while in a District park or recreation facility creates a stricter standard regarding nudity than exists in the Criminal Code. It imposes strict liability, is not subject to a community standard of tolerance test, and in the breach can lead to imprisonment. It also purports to criminalize the conduct of girls as young as nine years of age.

[57] I do not find in the evidence support for the view that the parks could not operate in orderly fashion if a female were to bare her breasts in a circumstance that did not offend criminal laws of nudity. The evidence suggests the Section 3A amendment to the Park By-Law was more a reaction to a frustration that the criminal law was not supporting the moral standards in regard to females who chose to bare their breasts in public that some Maple Ridge citizens desired.

[58] The Park By-Law in issue does not illustrate the clear valid provincial object that was found in Ontario Adult Entertainment Bar Association of Toronto (1997), 188 C.C.C. (3d) 481, 35 O.R. (3d) 161, or cases of similar circumstance. The evidence in Ontario Adult Entertainment, supra, indicated "lap dancing" created health and safety risks for dancers and the activity could encourage the commission of crimes.

[59] I find Section 3A to be lacking a clear provincial object, and taken in context of events existing at the time of its enactment suggests a colourable attempt to regulate morality and thus displace the federal jurisdiction in respect of criminal law.

[60] In my view, the "matter" or "pith and substance" of Section 3A of the Park By-Law places it within federal legislative competence as being a matter for the criminal law. It is not a matter which can be fairly described as property and civil rights [Constitution Act, s.92(13)] or a matter of a local and private nature [s.92(16)].

[61] I accept that the enforcement of a Park By-Law offence under the Offence Act does not lead to a characterization of a federal criminal law power. Provinces have an express ancillary power to impose punishment for the purpose of enforcing valid provincial laws under s.92(15) of the Constitution Act.

[62] Neither does the fact a valid by-law may be enforced with penal consequence aid in discovery of whether the by-law itself is inter vires the enacting jurisdiction.

[63] I find that the impugned Section 3A of the Park By-Law is ultra vires the legislative competence of Maple Ridge and the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration to that effect. I consider that in light of this finding I should not comment upon further issues of whether the Park By-Law if validly enacted would infringe upon Ms. Meyer's Charter Rights.

[64] The defendant's 18A application is allowed.

[65] I was advised the parties agree the counterclaim in this action be dismissed.

[66] I am unaware of any agreement of the parties regarding costs. In the absence of agreement to the contrary the defendant is entitled to her costs on Scale 3.

"R.R. Holmes, J."
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.R. Holmes

Can you get that printed up on a thong, maybe?

Hee hee! That might be more suited to bikini style, more space!

"R.R. Holmes, J."
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.R. Holmes

Any relation to the Wonderlandful John Holmes?

So a thong and topless should be okay at Willows? I can't wait for next summer!

Can you let me know when you will be going?

You can be my spotter.

You can be my spotter.

I'll spot the other one, lol!!

That likely won't go unchallenged. You'll get a visit and a request from cops to cover up. Whether you do, and whether they insist, that's probably never been tested here.

I don't think it needs to be tested here. The ruling in R. vs. Jacobs (1996) is unusually clear in the result: someone (or even many someones) being upset by something does not amount to that thing being indecent, criminally or otherwise. The appeals court took two different approaches to the same end.

The cops ignore the naked bike ride every year and that has full frontal and backtal nudity.

^I think the correct term is "backal" nudity. I didn't even know Victoria had a naked bike ride. Man, I need to get out more.

Regardless, this thread is useless without pics.

I didn't even know Victoria had a naked bike ride. Man, I need to get out more.

No, you just need to know about Flickr.