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

Page: 26The 1990 Prostitution Reference[53] In the Prostitution Reference, the Supreme Court was asked to considerwhether s. 193 (now s. 210) and s. 195.1(1)(c) (now s. 213(1)(c)) of the CriminalCode, separately or together, violated s. 2(b) or s. 7 of the Charter and, if so,whether those violations could be justified under s. 1. The entire court found thats. 195.1(1)(c), the communicating offence, infringed s. 2(b) of the Charter. ChiefJustice Dickson, for the majority, upheld the provision as a reasonable limit onexpression under s. 1 of the Charter, whereas Wilson and L‟Heureux-Dubé JJ.found that the provision was not sufficiently tailored to its objective to be savedunder s. 1.[54] With respect to s. 7, all six judges held that both the bawdy-house andcommunicating provisions infringe the right to liberty because of the potential forimprisonment. Five judges found it unnecessary to address the question whethers. 7 protects people‟s economic liberty to pursue their chosen professions.Justice Lamer discussed this issue in his concurring reasons.[55] With respect to the principles of fundamental justice, all the judgesconsidered whether the challenged provisions are void for vagueness andwhether it is impermissible for Parliament to send out conflicting messageswhereby the criminal law says one thing but means another (i.e. street solicitationis a crime, but prostitution itself is legal). They rejected both arguments and