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

Page: 108[269] We are satisfied that the concept of exploitation is not unconstitutionallyvague. In Canadian Foundation for Children, at para. 15, McLachlin C.J.described the void for vagueness principle in these terms:A law is unconstitutionally vague if it “does not providean adequate basis for legal debate” and “analysis”;“does not sufficiently delineate any area of risk”; or “isnot intelligible”. The law must offer a “grasp to thejudiciary”: R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society,[1992] 2 S.C.R. 606, at pp. 639-40. Certainty is notrequired.[270] Exploitation is already an element of the offence where the accused andthe prostitute are living together, as a result of Grilo. It is a concept that courtshave used in other contexts and is often found where the victim is in a state ofdependency. There will be hallmarks of exploitation that will assist in delineatingthe area of risk, as where the prostitute is dependent on the accused for drugs orbecause of youth, where the accused has no legal or moral claim to theprostitute‟s earnings, or where the accused takes a portion of the prostitute‟searnings that is out of all proportion to the services provided. On the other hand,where there is no exploitation in this sense, as in a case like Barrow, the personwould not be committing the offence of living on the avails of prostitution.[271] We are also satisfied that reading in furthers Parliament‟s objectives. InDowney, Cory J. stated the objective of s. 212(1)(j) in broad terms to apply tothose who have an economic stake in the prostitute‟s earnings. However, heindicated that the real target of the provision was the “pimp”. Preserving