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

Page: 101[247] The case for a blanket prohibition on the first basis – the difficulty ofidentifying the vulnerable group in advance – is superficially more compelling.We are, however, satisfied that the application judge was right to find that theliving on the avails provision violates the overbreadth principle.[248] The overbreadth analysis requires an examination of the means used toaccomplish the valid state objective. If those means are broader than necessary,s. 7 is violated. Even a law that has been found not to violate the principle offundamental justice against arbitrariness, as with the living on the availsprovision, can be held to be overbroad because in some applications the lawgoes further than necessary and is thus too sweeping in relation to its objective.[249] This is the case with living on the avails. The problem lies in the broadlanguage of the provision itself: living “wholly or in part on the avails ofprostitution of another person”. As we have said, the courts have alwaysrecognized the potential scope of the legislation, and accordingly narrowed itsreach to persons who supply goods and services to prostitutes in furtherance ofthe prostitutes‟ occupation. In this way, the shopkeeper who sells a prostitutegroceries or the doctor who provides her health care are exempt from theprohibition.But even this narrowing of the ambit of the legislation reacheseveryone else who is involved in some way with the business of the prostitute,and who not only does not exploit the prostitute, but may actually be protectingher.