Two federal laws in Canada (Section 173 and 174 of the Criminal Code) apply across the country. Section 173 prohibits “indecent acts” done either: in a public place, or in any place, if done with the intent to “insult or offend”. It also forbids “exposure of genital organs” for a “sexual purpose” to someone under the age of 16.
Section 174 dealing with nudity may only be used when the provincial Attorney-General approves. The police routinely use other laws, e.g. Disturbing the Peace, Mischief, and Trespassing, to get around this requirement and still harass naturists. Section 174 prohibits being “so clad as to offend against public decency or order” while exposed to public view. Parliament leaves the exact definition of these terms up to courts to decide. Various Provincial courts have decided that nude swimming and sunbathing is not within the range of this law: “this offence is not aimed at conduct such as swimming nude at an isolated beach, even where the accused misjudges the loneliness of the beach” and “mere nude sunbathing is not of sufficient moral turpitude to support a charge for doing an indecent act.”
Toplessness is not an indecent act under Section 173. In 1991, Gwen Jacob was arrested for walking in a street in Guelph, Ontario while topless. She was acquitted in 1996 by the Ontario Court of Appeal on the basis that the act of being topless is not in itself a sexual act or indecent. The case has been referred to in subsequent cases for the proposition that the mere act of public nudity is not sexual or indecent or an offense. Since then, the court ruling has been tested and upheld several times.
A photograph of nudists may be considered an innocent picture, an erotic photo and pornography. Canadian law criminalizes child pornography which is defined as “a matter that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or (ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years..”
In 2000 a similar case to Jacob’s resulted in acquittal. Linda Meyer, a topfree activist inspired by the Gwen Jacob case, appeared in a number of public venues topless. A bylaw in the municipality of Maple Ridge stated, “Females over the age of 8 years shall fully cover all portions of their nipples and aureole with opaque apparel”. On July 1, 1997, Linda Meyer went to the swimming pool in the bottom half of her bikini. Some parents complained, and she was charged,[18] but the judge in this case (Justice Holmes) voided the bylaw stating, inter alia:[19]
[55] In R. v. Jacob, supra, a woman who walked bare-breasted on a city street and then reclined topfree 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.
[57] I do not find in the evidence support for the view that the parks could not operate in an 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 Bylaw 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.
[64] The defendant’s 18A application is allowed.
Full judgement: Maple Ridge v Linda Meyers 2000 BC Supreme Court decision (text version)
Seven years after the decision, in 2007, the ruling was re-affirmed with VPD acknowledging that women are allowed to be topless in public areas.
Vancouver Courier 2007 Feb. 28 page 7
Police board agrees with topless crusader – Mike Howell-Staff writer
A Maple Ridge woman who bared her breasts in Gastown last summer is celebrating a victory of sorts after the Vancouver Police Board agreed she can go topless in public.
Linda Meyer said she had no doubt she was allowed to go topless Aug. 7 in Gastown, despite being questioned by three Vancouver police officers about her public nudity. “I had an airtight constitutional case, there was no way I was going to lose,” Meyer told the Courier.
Terry La Liberte, a member of the police board, broke the news at the board’s public meeting Feb. 21 at Van Dusen Gardens. La Liberte, a criminal lawyer, chairs the board’s service and policy complaint review committee.
“We had a legal opinion and it is very clear that she is correct,” La Liberte said. “It is not a crime.”
Deputy Chief Doug LePard said he would notify the training section of the department to issue a bulletin for police officers.”
On Thursday, August 14, 2025, the clothing-optional rights group NIFTY (Naked Iconoclasts Fighting The Yoke) held a topfree beach day at Vancouver’s Locarno Beach, to celebrate the right of B.C. women and men to be topfree in public. Despite this being settled in law throughout B.C. for 25 years, one woman participant was approached by Vancouver Police Officers at the Locarno event and was directed by the officer to keep a top on at the beach. To protest this intimidation of a citizen who was acting entirely lawfully, NIFTY held a topfree protest on Locarno Beach on Sunday, September 7, 2025.
Loading ...