The majority of the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal. As the test for defining indecency, necessary in order to answer whether Mr. Kouri was guilty of operating a bawdy-house, was set out in "R v Labaye", the Court in "R v Kouri" concentrated on whether sufficient measures were taken by Mr. Kouri so that the public was not exposed to something they would not want to see. Had Mr. Kouri not done so, he might have been guilty of indecency. The Court took the view that the Crown did not effectively prove its case against Mr. Kouri.