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

Page: 18provisions engage the respondents‟ security of the person.This conclusionrested on three related findings.[33] First, prostitutes in Canada face a high risk of physical violence, though theapplication judge noted that most of the evidence on this point related to streetprostitutes (para. 293).[34] Second, the risk of violence can be reduced, although not necessarilyeliminated, if prostitutes are able to take basic precautions such as workingindoors, being in close proximity to people who can intervene if needed, takingtime to screen customers, having regular customers, and planning an escaperoute (paras. 300-301).[35] Third, the challenged provisions prevent prostitutes from takingprecautions that can reduce the risk of violence. The application judge explainedat paras. 361-362:With respect to s. 210, the evidence suggests thatworking in-call is the safest way to sell sex; yet,prostitutes who attempt to increase their level of safetyby working in-call face criminal sanction. With respectto s. 212(1)(j), prostitution, including legal out-call work,may be made less dangerous if a prostitute is allowed tohire an assistant or a bodyguard; yet, such businessrelationships are illegal due to the living on the avails ofprostitution provision. Finally, s. 213(1)(c) prohibitsstreet prostitutes, who are largely the most vulnerableprostitutes and face an alarming amount of violence,from screening clients at an early, and crucial stage of apotential transaction, thereby putting them at anincreased risk of violence.