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

Page: 22sufficiently tailored to its objective and does not meetthe minimal impairment test. The expression beingcurtailed is not purely for an economic purpose, but isalso for the purpose of guarding personal security, anexpressive purpose that lies at or near the core of theguarantee.Remedy[44] The application judge declared that all three of the challenged provisionsare unconstitutional. Applying the principles set down in Schachter v. Canada,[1992] 2 S.C.R. 679, she struck down the living on the avails and communicatingprovisions (ss. 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c)).She struck down the prohibition onbawdy-houses for the purpose of prostitution by striking the word “prostitution”from the definition of “common bawdy-house” in s. 197(1). This remedy did notaffect the prohibition on bawdy-houses for “acts of indecency”, as therespondents had not challenged this aspect of the law. It also left intact other,unchallenged provisions of the Criminal Code that reference common bawdyhousesfor purposes of prostitution, such as the procuring and concealingoffences in s. 212(1)(b), (c), (e) and (f).Stay of the application judge’s decision[45] The application judge stayed her decision for 30 days, later extended for afurther 30 days.This stay was continued through orders of this court andremained in effect until further order.