The historical crime of keeping a “bawdy house” in Canada was an indictable offence under UCR Code 3110 and former Section 210 of the Criminal Code. Under what is now commonly referred to as the bawdy house law Canada, it was illegal to keep, occupy, or knowingly permit premises to be used as a place for prostitution or for acts considered indecent. The law targeted not only those who ran such establishments, but also people found in them without lawful excuse and landlords or others who allowed their property to be used this way. As of June 21, 2019, however, Section 210 was fully repealed, and bawdy house offences no longer exist in Canadian criminal law, although historical convictions and record issues remain important.
The Legal Definition
Before its repeal, a “common bawdy-house” was defined in the Criminal Code (see historical versions of s. 210 and s. 197) as a place that is “kept or occupied, or resorted to by one or more persons for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency.”
In plain English, a common bawdy house was any place—whether a house, apartment, room, or other premises—that was regularly used for prostitution or sexual activity that courts classified as “indecent” under Canadian standards. The definition was deliberately broad: it covered places that were kept for those purposes, occupied for those purposes, or resorted to (visited) for those purposes by one or more people. It did not have to be a stereotypical brothel; even part of a private residence could be prosecuted if it fit the definition.
The historical wording, preserved in archived versions of the Criminal Code, s. 210, meant that the Crown did not need to prove a large commercial operation, repeated transactions, or multiple sex workers. It was enough that the premises were used as a place for prostitution or indecent acts in a sufficiently ongoing way that it could be said they were “kept” or “resorted to” for that purpose. Courts also interpreted “acts of indecency” broadly—beyond classic prostitution—capturing various consensual sexual activities that, at the time, were seen as offending public decency when organized in a specific venue.
Penalties & Sentencing Framework
- Mandatory minimum penalty: None. There were no statutory minimum fines or jail terms.
- Maximum penalty (s. 210(1) – keeping a common bawdy house): Imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years (indictable offence).
- Related offences under s. 210(2) (historically): Being an inmate of a bawdy house, being found there without lawful excuse, or knowingly permitting premises to be used as a bawdy house were summary conviction offences, punishable under the general summary provisions (fine up to $5,000, jail up to two years less a day, or both).
Historically, the core bawdy house offence—keeping a common bawdy house—was classified as an indictable offence. This placed it in a more serious category, with the possibility of a formal prosecution, a jury trial in some circumstances, and a criminal record reflecting a significant morality-based crime. The maximum sentence was two years’ imprisonment, which signalled Parliament’s view that operating such premises was a serious matter, though not among the most severe offences in the Code.
By contrast, related conduct under former s. 210(2) was less serious and prosecuted by summary conviction. This included being an “inmate” (essentially a regular occupant of the bawdy house), being found in the premises without lawful excuse, or being a landlord/owner/occupier who knowingly permitted the premises to be used as a bawdy house. Those offences drew on the general summary penalty framework in s. 787 of the Criminal Code, which allowed a fine, a custodial sentence of up to two years less a day, or both, but with less procedural complexity than an indictable trial.
Importantly, there were no mandatory minimum penalties for any bawdy house offences. Judges had broad discretion to tailor sentences to the circumstances: the scale of the operation, level of exploitation, involvement of organized crime, prior criminal record, and evidence of coercion or vulnerability among those involved. In many cases, courts used conditional sentences, fines, or probation for less serious conduct, reserving custodial terms closer to the two-year maximum for more organized or exploitative operations.
Common Defenses
-
Lack of control or “keeping” the premises
Historically, one of the most important defences was that the accused did not actually “keep” the bawdy house. To prove the indictable offence, the Crown had to show some level of control, management, or responsibility for the operation of the premises—such as organizing schedules, handling payments, setting rules, or controlling access. Someone who was merely present, visiting, or providing a limited service without decision‑making power could argue they were not a “keeper.” Courts distinguished between being an inmate or visitor and being the person in charge; where the evidence did not establish control or management, an accused could avoid liability for the more serious indictable offence. -
Lack of knowledge (for landlords and others in control)
Section 210(2) required that owners, landlords, lessors, tenants, or others “having charge or control” of the place knowingly permitted it to be used as a bawdy house. A common defence was to argue that the accused did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that prostitution or indecent acts were occurring. For example, a landlord might show they rented the premises for a seemingly legitimate purpose, had no complaints or warnings, and had no reason to suspect bawdy house activity. However, Canadian courts often treated deliberate ignorance as “wilful blindness,” which could satisfy the knowledge requirement. So the defence tended to succeed only where the absence of knowledge was credible and not contradicted by obvious warning signs. -
Challenging whether conduct was prostitution or indecency
Another defence strategy was to dispute that the activities in question amounted to “prostitution” or “acts of indecency” as those terms were interpreted by Canadian courts. For prostitution, this could involve arguing that there was no exchange of sexual services for consideration, or that the services offered were not sexual within the legal meaning. For “acts of indecency,” accused persons sometimes argued that the sexual conduct, especially if consensual and between adults, did not cross the threshold of indecency based on contemporary community standards. While courts often interpreted these concepts broadly, weaknesses in the Crown’s evidence about what actually occurred at the premises could lead to acquittals or reduced charges. -
No “common” or ongoing character to the premises
The definition of a common bawdy house required that the premises be kept, occupied, or resorted to for the specified purposes in a way that had a certain continuity or pattern. Defence counsel sometimes argued that the use was isolated, temporary, or incidental—not enough to classify the place as a “common” bawdy house. For example, a single event at a location, without evidence of repeated or organized use, might not meet the legal threshold. Where the Crown’s proof of repeated or organized activity was weak, this defence could undercut the bawdy house element. -
Lawful excuse for being present
For those charged under the old s. 210(2)(b) with being “found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house,” the statute itself recognized a defence: having a lawful excuse for being there. Individuals might argue they were present as cleaners, repair technicians, delivery workers, or other legitimate business visitors; or that they were visiting a friend or family member without participating in prostitution or indecent acts. The burden was on the Crown to disprove such excuses once they were properly raised. Courts examined the credibility of the explanation, the time of day, the person’s conduct at the premises, and surrounding circumstances to decide whether the excuse was genuine.
Real-World Example
Imagine a landlord who knowingly rents out an apartment for use as a place for prostitution. They receive higher-than-market rent, ignore frequent late‑night visitors, and even agree to install extra security features requested by the tenant to screen clients. Under the historical bawdy house law Canada, this scenario could have led to multiple charges. The person running the operation inside the apartment—organizing appointments, collecting money, and managing the premises—could be charged with the indictable offence of keeping a common bawdy house. Regular sex workers living or working there could be treated as inmates, and frequent adult clients found on the premises without a genuine lawful excuse could, in earlier eras, be charged with being found in a bawdy house. The landlord, if the Crown could prove they knew or were wilfully blind to the nature of the business, could be convicted under the summary offence of knowingly permitting a place under their control to be used as a bawdy house. Today, following the repeal of s. 210 in 2019, that exact conduct would no longer be prosecuted under bawdy house provisions, but law enforcement could instead consider other prostitution‑related or nuisance‑based offences that reflect Canada’s modern policy of targeting the purchase of sexual services and commercial exploitation rather than the mere existence of premises.
Record Suspensions (Pardons)
Although the bawdy house offences have been repealed, many people still carry historical convictions under former s. 210. Those convictions did not automatically disappear when Parliament repealed the provision on June 21, 2019. Instead, individuals must seek relief through Canada’s record relief mechanisms. For bawdy house convictions, the federal government has taken the significant step of making them eligible for record expungement, which is a stronger remedy than an ordinary record suspension (pardon). As the Parole Board of Canada explains in its list of eligible expungement convictions, offences relating to bawdy houses—including keeping, being found in, or permitting a place to be used as a bawdy house—are specifically recognized. Expungement, once granted, requires federal agencies to permanently remove the record of the conviction, as if it never occurred, reflecting Parliament’s view that individuals should not continue to suffer legal or social consequences for conduct that is no longer criminalized and that is now seen as rooted in outdated morality-based laws. Individuals with such convictions should review current Parole Board guidance or obtain legal advice about eligibility criteria, application steps, and supporting evidence required.
Related Violations
- Indecent Exposure
- Causing a Disturbance
- Prostitution-Related Offences (current offences relating to offering, providing, or obtaining sexual services for consideration)