Under Canadian criminal law, the offence of keeping a common bawdy houseindictable offence under section 210 of the Criminal Code, it carried the potential for jail time of up to two years. Although bawdy house provisions, including section 210, were later repealed, this archived law still matters for people with older charges or convictions and for legal research into how common bawdy house law functioned in Canada.
The Legal Definition
“Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”
– Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, s. 210(1)
In plain English, section 210(1) made it a crime to “keep” a common bawdy house. A common bawdy house was any place kept, occupied, or habitually used for the purpose of prostitution or for committing acts the law viewed as indecent. The offence focused on the person responsible for operating, maintaining, or managing the premises, rather than on a one‑time visitor.
To “keep” a common bawdy house, the Crown typically had to show that the accused had control or management of the premises and that the location was used as a place of resort for prostitution or indecency, not just a single isolated act. The archived wording in section 210 also created related offences, such as being an inmate of a bawdy house, being found there without lawful excuse, or knowingly permitting premises to be used as a bawdy house. However, only the “keeping” offence in subsection 210(1) was classified as indictable, with the corresponding higher maximum penalty.
Penalties & Sentencing Framework
- UCR Code: 3240 – Common Bawdy House
- Offence type: Indictable (s. 210(1))
- Mandatory minimum penalty: None
- Maximum penalty (indictable): Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years
- Related offences (s. 210(2)): Punishable on summary conviction (being an inmate, being found without lawful excuse, knowingly permitting use)
Under the archived common bawdy house law, the primary offence of keeping a common bawdy house was a pure indictable offence. That meant it proceeded in the higher criminal court process, with greater procedural safeguards for the accused and higher potential penalties than summary conviction offences. The maximum sentence a judge could impose was two years in prison, but there was no mandatory minimum, allowing judges to consider a broad range of other outcomes, such as probation, fines, or a suspended sentence, depending on the facts.
By contrast, related behaviours under subsection 210(2) – such as 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 prosecuted by summary conviction. Summary conviction offences generally carry lower maximum penalties (governed by the Criminal Code’s general summary conviction limits), shorter limitation periods for laying charges, and are heard in provincial courts without any election for a jury. This structural difference shows how Parliament considered operating a bawdy house more serious than merely being present or connected in a lesser way.
In sentencing for a common bawdy house, courts historically considered factors such as the scale of the operation, whether it involved exploitation or coercion, the level of community impact, prior criminal record, and whether the accused profited from the activity. Because there was no mandatory minimum, judges could tailor the sentence to reflect both the moral blameworthiness of the accused and the evolving social and legal attitudes toward sex work and indecency over time.
Common Defenses
-
Lawful excuse
“Lawful excuse” is explicitly mentioned in subsection 210(2)(b) for the offence of being found in a common bawdy house. While the core indictable offence in 210(1) does not use those exact words, the concept is still relevant. A lawful excuse means a legally recognized justification for being on or associated with the premises. For example, police officers executing a warrant, health inspectors, emergency personnel, or tradespeople performing necessary work might be present in a bawdy house without committing an offence. In practice, if someone charged as an “inmate” or person found in the premises could show they had a legitimate, non‑criminal reason to be there and were not participating in prostitution or indecency, they could raise lawful excuse as a defence. Although this defence is more directly tied to 210(2), its logic influences how courts assess responsibility and fault for all bawdy house‑related conduct, including disputes over who was actually “keeping” the house.
-
Proof of taking all reasonable steps to prevent recurrence
Subsection 210(4) of the archived provision dealt specifically with landlords or owners who had been convicted of permitting premises to be used as a bawdy house. It provided that following such a conviction, if the premises were again used as a bawdy house, the owner or landlord was deemed to commit a further offence unless they could prove they had taken all reasonable steps to prevent that from happening again. This creates an important defence: if a landlord implemented genuine, proactive measures – such as revising lease terms, issuing warnings, initiating eviction proceedings, conducting inspections compliant with tenancy law, or promptly contacting authorities upon suspicion – they could argue they met this “all reasonable steps” threshold. The defence recognizes that landlords are not expected to guarantee perfect compliance, but must show serious, good‑faith efforts to stop the illegal use of their property. Where this standard is met, criminal liability for repeated bawdy house use can be avoided.
-
Lack of knowledge or control
For owners, landlords, or occupiers charged under subsection 210(2)(c) with “knowingly permitting” premises to be used as a common bawdy house, the word “knowingly” is central. The Crown has to prove that the accused knew about the bawdy house activity and allowed it to continue. This opens the door to a defence based on lack of knowledge or lack of control. If an accused can demonstrate that they had no realistic reason to suspect the illegal use of the premises, or that they did not have the legal or practical ability to control or stop that use, they may be acquitted. In practice, this defence is often raised by landlords or property managers who rented or leased space for what appeared to be legitimate purposes. Evidence such as ordinary lease documents, regular inspection practices, absence of complaints, and immediate action once they became aware of the issue can support a finding that they neither knew of nor permitted the bawdy house. While the indictable offence of keeping a bawdy house focuses on the operator, similar logic applies: if a person had no genuine control over the operation and was not involved in its management, it is more difficult to prove they were “keeping” a common bawdy house.
Real-World Example
Imagine a landlord unknowingly renting out a property that is used as a common bawdy house. The tenant advertises the premises as a holistic spa and signs a standard commercial lease. Over months, the landlord receives rent on time, gets no noise complaints, and sees nothing unusual on occasional exterior visits to the property. Eventually, police investigate and charge the tenant with keeping a common bawdy house, and the landlord is charged with knowingly permitting the premises to be used as a bawdy house.
Under the archived common bawdy house law, the key questions for the landlord would be: did they actually know the illegal activity was taking place, and did they have the ability to stop it? If the landlord can show there were no warning signs, that all documents appeared legitimate, and that they took prompt steps (such as starting eviction) once informed by authorities, they can argue a defence of lack of knowledge or control. If there had been a prior conviction relating to the same premises, the landlord would also need to show that they took all reasonable steps to prevent recurrence – for example, stricter tenant screening and closer monitoring. Police and prosecutors, on the other hand, would try to prove that the signs of a bawdy house were obvious or that the landlord turned a blind eye. The court would weigh all of this evidence to decide whether the landlord truly “knowingly permitted” the property to be used as a common bawdy house.
Record Suspensions (Pardons)
Even though section 210 has been repealed, people can still live with historical convictions for keeping a common bawdy house. In Canada, these individuals may apply to the Parole Board of Canada for a record suspension (formerly called a pardon). Because keeping a common bawdy house was an indictable offence, the standard waiting period for eligibility is typically 10 years after the completion of the entire sentence (including any imprisonment, probation, and payment of fines or surcharges). During that time, the person must remain crime‑free and demonstrate stable conduct.
A record suspension does not erase the fact that a conviction occurred, but it can set the record apart from active criminal history records and generally prevents it from appearing in most criminal record checks within Canada. This can significantly improve access to employment, education, housing, and volunteer opportunities. Because the law and administrative policies can change over time – particularly for repealed offences related to prostitution and bawdy houses – anyone seeking a record suspension for a common bawdy house conviction should review the most recent Parole Board of Canada guidance or consult a lawyer or accredited record‑suspension professional.
Related Violations
- Being an inmate of a common bawdy house (s. 210(2))
- Knowingly permitting use of premises as a common bawdy house (s. 210(2)(c))
- Found without lawful excuse in a common bawdy house (s. 210(2)(b))