Is it a Crime to Skinny Dip?

Skinny dipping, which refers to the act of swimming naked, may be considered a criminal offence in Canada, depending on the circumstances under which it is committed. 

This falls under Section 174 of the Criminal Code of Canada pertaining to nudity. This stipulates that without a lawful excuse, anyone who is nude in a public place or on private property, regardless of whether the property belongs to them or not, is guilty of an offence that is punishable on summary conviction. 

It is important to note that for the purposes of this section, a person is deemed nude if they are so clad as to offend against public decency or order. No proceedings pertaining to this law can be commenced without the consent of the Attorney General. 

Public Nudity Laws

Section 174 of Canada's Criminal Code prohibits nudity in public places or on private property that can be seen by the public "without a lawful excuse". However, it should be noted that criminal offences under section 174 are prosecuted inconsistently and with varying results. 

There isn't an explicit definition for indecency in section 174. Rather, the interpretation of what constitutes indecency is dependent on the presiding judge's discretion. Explicit exposure of genital organs for a sexual purpose to a minor under 16 years is qualified as an indecent act under section 173. The phrase "lawful excuse" can potentially be used as a defence against criminal charges of nudity. Cases arguing the legal definitions of "nudity" and "lawful excuse" have even reached the Supreme Court of Canada.

While serious criminal offences proceed by indictment, less serious offences like nudity proceed by summary. In fact, everyone convicted of committing the criminal offence of nudity is judged guilty of a summary conviction offence as it is considered a less serious crime. Nudity is punishable by a maximum of six months in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both.

Furthermore, section 174 defines "nudity" as being "so clad as to offend against public decency or order", implying that the offender does not necessarily need to be completely naked. However, the section does not provide an explicit definition of indecency, leaving its determination up to the presiding judge's discretion. While Section 173 of the code pertains to indecent acts, it does not define what it means to clad so as to offend public decency or order. But, it does regard the act of a person exposing his or her genital organs for a sexual purpose to someone under the age of 16 years as indecent.

A "lawful excuse" can be argued as a defence against criminal charges of nudity. To this end, nudity cases have escalated to the Supreme Court of Canada, where the legal definitions of "nudity" and "lawful excuse" have been debated. Historically, Canadian courts have demonstrated leniency towards nudity charges, with exceptions being cases where the nudity is sexual and/or directed at someone in a harassive manner.