Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA ... - York University

Page: 14The government’s response[21] The Attorney General of Canada, supported by the intervener the AttorneyGeneral of Ontario, 4 opposed the application on two principal grounds. First, theAttorney General argued that the Supreme Court‟s decision in Reference Ress. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123(“Prostitution Reference”), coupled with the principle of stare decisis (the doctrineof binding precedent), prevented the application judge from considering orreconsidering the constitutionality of the bawdy-house and communicatingprovisions (ss. 210 and 213(1)(c)). In the Prostitution Reference, the SupremeCourt held that both of these provisions did not violate the Charter.[22] Second, in the event that the application judge decided that the ProstitutionReference was not binding, the Attorney General submitted that the respondentsfailed to meet their evidentiary burden of proving a violation of their s. 7 rights.The Attorney General argued that the challenged laws do not create the risk toprostitutes; rather, the risk to prostitutes is inherent in the nature of prostitutionitself.The evidence on the application[23] The application record in this case comprised over 25,000 pages ofevidence in 88 volumes. Much of the evidence was in the form of affidavits, and4 The Attorney General of Ontario was an intervener in the Superior Court of Justice. It is an appellant onthe appeal.