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

Page: 73[169] To conclude on this point, we are satisfied that the challenged provisionsare not aimed at eradicating prostitution, but only some of the consequencesassociated with it, such as disruption of neighbourhoods and the exploitation ofvulnerable women by pimps.[170] Having determined that there is no single, overarching legislative objectivethat animates the three provisions at issue in this case, we now turn to considereach provision individually, to assess whether it accords with the principles offundamental justice.[171] Our method is as follows. We open our discussion of each provision with ashort preview of our ultimate conclusion on its constitutionality. The analysis thatfollows begins with an interpretation of the challenged provision, drawn from itslegislative history and the existing jurisprudence. Next, we identify the legislativeobjectives of the challenged provision. We then evaluate whether the challengedprovision runs afoul of any of the three principles of fundamental justice at issue:arbitrariness, overbreadth, and gross disproportionality. If it does, we turn to itsjustification under s. 1, and finally, to any necessary remedies.Do the bawdy-house provisions violate the principles of fundamentaljustice?[172] As we explain below, the bawdy-house provisions aim to combatneighbourhood disruption or disorder and to safeguard public health and safety.We agree with the application judge that the prohibition is not arbitrary, because