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

Page: 102[250] As it stands, the blanket prohibition on living on the avails catches not justthe driver or the bodyguard (who may be a pimp by another name), but also theaccountant who keeps the prostitute‟s records and the receptionist who booksappointments and checks credit card numbers.[251] As the application judge pointed out, the facts in Barrow are the obviousexample of overbreadth. While the accused took a percentage of the prostitutes‟earnings, she also performed precisely the sorts of simple, common sense tasks– screening customers, booking hotel rooms, and acting as the prostitutes‟ “safecall” – that the application judge found could dramatically improve prostitutes‟safety. Barrow affords a striking example of a valid objective that, asimplemented through the legislation, is in some applications overbroad.[252] The argument that the blanket prohibition is necessary because membersof the vulnerable group cannot be identified in advance, founders on theexperience with people who live with prostitutes. One would have thought thatthis is a group that is very likely to take advantage of vulnerable prostitutes.However, in Grilo, this court was satisfied that it was possible to distinguishbetween those who were the legitimate target of the legislation and those whoshould not be caught by it, using the concept of exploitation as a filter.