What is the effect of a municipal by-law restricting the activities of adult entertainment parlours with respect to morality?

In dealing with this issue the court may consider and draw inferences of risk from human nature, the nature of things and the social conditions of the time: see Montreal (City) v. Arcade Amusements Inc., 1985 CanLII 97 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 368 at p. 382. Having regard to all the circumstances, we are not persuaded that the applicant has demonstrated that the primary purpose in enacting the impugned by-law was to legislate morality. The recent trend of activities in adult entertainment parlours created health and safety risks for the attendants which had not been previously present. There was a concern that the present activities might lead to the commission of crimes. In our opinion the pith and substance of the impugned By-Law was the protection of the health and safety of persons in adult entertainment parlours and the prevention of crime in licensed establishments. There may be a moral element in the effect of the By-Law. Morality may be an ancillary purpose of a municipal by-law as long as morality is not the dominant purpose. In our view the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a moral concern was the dominant purpose of this By-Law. A by-law enacted for proper municipal purposes is valid notwithstanding the presence of a moral element: see McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, 1978 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 662.