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

Page: 16Preliminary matters: standing and stare decisis[26] The application judge dealt with two preliminary matters before turning tothe merits of the constitutional challenge. First, she held that all the respondentshad private interest standing to challenge the three provisions of the CriminalCode.In so holding, the application judge rejected the Attorney General ofCanada‟s attempt to distinguish between Ms. Lebovitch, who currently works asa prostitute, and Ms. Bedford and Ms. Scott, both of whom worked as prostitutesin the past and wish to return to this type of work in the future.[27] Second, the application judge acknowledged, at para. 66, that theSupreme Court‟s decision in the Prostitution Reference was “prima facie bindingon this court” with respect to the bawdy-house and communicating provisions.Nevertheless, she concluded, at para. 75, that she was not foreclosed fromhearing the application because “the issues argued in this case are different thanthose argued in the Prostitution Reference.”Legislative objectives[28] After summarizing the voluminous evidence tendered on the application,the application judge discussed the legislative objectives of the three challengedprovisions of the Criminal Code.[29] Relying principally on R. v. Rockert, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 704, the applicationjudge stated, at para. 242, that the objectives of the bawdy-house provisions (i.e.