My understanding is it has not succeeded. There have been some cases, early on, after the enactment of the child pornography offence, and it has not succeeded. I'm not aware of a case under the voyeurism offence where there's been an issue with that. So in the context of Bill C-54's proposal, there is every reason to believe that a court interpreting the new offence would be very much directed and guided by the Supreme Court's decision in Sharpe and other case law under the voyeurism offence.
On February 2nd, 2011. See this statement in context.