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

Page: 6Doherty, Rosenberg, and Feldman JJ.A.:[1] For decades, and even for centuries, governments around the world havegrappled with prostitution and its associated problems. Some have opted for anoutright ban. Others have chosen to decriminalize and regulate certain aspects ofprostitution. Still others have criminalized the purchase, but not the sale, of sex.[2] In Canada, prostitution itself is legal. There is no law that prohibits aperson from selling sex, and no law that prohibits another from buying it.Parliament has, however, enacted laws that indirectly restrict the practice ofprostitution by criminalizing various related activities.[3] At issue in this case is the constitutionality of three provisions of theCriminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, which form the core of Parliament‟sresponse to prostitution:1. Section 210, which prohibits the operation of common bawdyhouses.This prevents prostitutes from offering their services out of fixedindoor locations such as brothels, or even their own homes;2. Section 212(1)(j), which prohibits living on the avails of prostitution.This prevents anyone, including but not limited to pimps, from profitingfrom another‟s prostitution; and3. Section 213(1)(c), which prohibits communicating for the purpose ofprostitution in public. This prevents prostitutes from offering their servicesin public, and particularly on the streets.[4] In the court below, the application judge held that these provisions areunconstitutional and must be struck down because they do not accord with the