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

Page: 24prostitution (i.e. prohibiting the purchase, but not the sale, of sex) as analternative to these positions.ANALYSISIssue 1: Do Ms. Bedford and Ms. Scott have standing to bring theconstitutional challenge?[48] As we explained above, the Attorney General of Canada conceded thatMs. Lebovitch has standing to challenge the Criminal Code provisions becauseshe was working as a prostitute at the time the application was launched.However, the Attorney General contested Ms. Bedford‟s and Ms. Scott‟s standingto make the same challenge because they were not working as prostitutes at thematerial time. The application judge rejected this as a meaningless distinctionand concluded that all three women had the requisite standing.[49] In three paragraphs in its 188-paragraph factum, the Attorney General ofCanada renews its objection to Ms. Bedford‟s and Ms. Scott‟s standing.However, counsel for the Attorney General made no oral submissions on thisissue in their full day of argument. The Attorney General of Ontario did not raisethe issue in its written or oral submissions.[50] There is a simple reality here. Ms. Lebovitch has private interest standingto challenge the three Criminal Code provisions. Neither appellant saysotherwise. This placed all the constitutional issues squarely before the