BRACEBRIDGE — One of Canada’s top defence lawyers is set to challenge Canada’s nudity law on behalf of Bracebridge resident Brian Coldin, who is accused of being naked to public view at various Bracebridge locations.
Ruby was present with Coldin in a Bracebridge court Tuesday, Jan. 12 when trial dates were set for Bradford and Barrie next September.
Initially Coldin faced four nudity-related charges. The first was laid on April 19, 2008 for being naked in the High Falls municipal park; the second for exposure to public view on the A&W Restaurant property located at 14 Depot Dr. on April 25, 2009; the third for a May 8, 2009 incident where Coldin was charged with exposure to public view at the Tim Hortons and A&W Restaurant properties located at 9 and 14 Depot Dr. respectively; and the fourth for exposure to public view at the A&W property on May 12, 2009.
However, in court last week, the charges that were laid April 25 and May 8, 2009, were withdrawn by the Crown.
“We’re pleased to have them withdrawn, because that means the Crown’s acknowledged they can’t prove them,” said Ruby. “(And that’s) after getting the consent of the Attorney General (to have the charges laid), I might add. I wonder what he was told?”
Coldin has long been at odds with the local justice system.
The High Falls Chalet Inn owner, whose business has catered to naturists in the past, has faced more than two dozen criminal charges in the past six years, the majority of which have either been dropped or cleared when they reached court.
Coldin believes he is being unduly targeted by authorities and points to his numerous dropped or cleared charges as evidence.
In defending Coldin, Ruby said he will be raising the constitutionality of Section 174 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which states that it is an offence if one is nude in a public place, or is nude in a private place, but is exposed to public view.
Specifically, he said the charges have to do with Coldin being seen either nude or partially nude at the named Bracebridge locations.
Beyond the charges being dropped, the defence received another break last week in the form of a ruling.
“The Crown wanted to force the judge to proceed (last Tuesday) and decide on the constitutionality of the nudity section, based on the statements the Crown had gathered from their witnesses,” said Ruby. “We said, ‘That’s silly; there’d be no cross-examination of those witnesses. It’s a piece of paper and it’s not admissible evidence and you shouldn’t force that on. You should deal with this as part of the trial, where we get cross-examination.’ The judge agreed with us.”
Crown attorney Mike Newell who is prosecuting the case, said last week’s appearance was also for scheduling.
“It’s strongly desirous to get all the matters to trial as quickly as possible,” he said. “I agreed to have both sets of charges tried at the same time. I did withdraw two charges to focus on the strongest parts of the Crown’s case.”
Justice J. Douglas will preside in the case. The trial will take place in Barrie on Sept. 13 and 14 and on Sept. 29 in Bradford.
“Mr. Ruby intends to challenge the law itself,” explained Newell, referring to Section 174. “They intend to challenge the constitutionality of that section. They’d be saying it isn’t consistent with our constitution.”
Newell said the 2008 charge is about being nude on public property. In the other cases, it’s about being nude on private property, i.e. the restaurants, but exposed to public view.
As of last Wednesday, Newell said the defence had yet to file any materials in the case, but it intends to do so shortly.
“We were talking on Tuesday about when, in the trial next September, will their constitutionality argument happen,” said Newell, “either right at the beginning or after the witnesses have testified. The judge decided it will get argued after the witnesses have testified.”
As to Ruby’s questioning of how the dropped charges were presented to the Attorney General’s office in the first place, Newell did not comment.
He said there are certain sections under the criminal code, which, because of their sensitive nature, require that charges meet the consent of the Attorney General, before they can proceed.
The Crown’s office acquired that consent, but Newell said discretion still lies with the Crown to decide how to proceed.
“I’ve chosen to focus the litigation onto two charges from 2009 and the charge from 2008,” he said. He was not personally involved in seeking the Attorney General’s consent on the charges, he added; it was done administratively by the Crown’s office.