The case arose out of a 2002 conviction in Quebec. Three men had an idea to steal the extra liquor that was on hand during the holiday season. One of the men was under criminal surveillance for an unrelated issue, and the police learned of their idea. No theft occurred, but the men were still arrested, charged, and convicted. Their conviction was upheld by the Quebec Court of Appeal.

At the Supreme Court, Canadian Civil Liberties Association Special Counsel Chris Wayland and Kristian Brabander of the McCarthy T?trault law firm, argued that "civil liberties concerns are particularly acute because conspiracy has been recognized as the offence permitting intervention by the criminal law at the earliest stage of conduct." In addition, they argued that such an offence “would create a substantial risk of criminalizing non-dangerous, perhaps even desirable, speech.”

The Court appeared to agree, concluding that “the criminal law does not punish bad thoughts of this sort that were abandoned before an agreement was reached, or an attempt made, to act upon them.”