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

Page: 42the respondent‟s rights must be identified before the court can properly assess aclaim that the legislation is inconsistent with the principles of fundamental justice.(2) The meaning of security of the person[97] The phrase “security of the person” defies exhaustive definition. Itsmeaning is best articulated in the context of the specific facts and claimsadvanced in a given case.[98] The respondents‟ security of the person claim is as follows. They maketheir living through prostitution. Prostitution is a lawful commercial activity. It isalso a potentially dangerous activity. Like any sensible person, the respondentswant to take reasonable steps to make their working environment as safe aspossible. They claim that the government is interfering with their ability to protectthemselves by criminalizing what are rudimentary and obvious steps they couldtake to reduce the risk of physical harm to them while they are engaged in thelawful activity of prostitution. In essence, the respondents assert that thechallenged provisions interfere with their security of the person by forcing them tochoose between the substantial added risk to personal safety that comes withcompliance with those provisions and the risk of incarceration that comes withnon-compliance with those same provisions.[99] Properly understood, the respondents‟ security of the person claim is aboutself-preservation. The preservation of one‟s physical safety and well-being is a