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

Page: 110direction “may”.But the Supreme Court declined to do so, because thelegislative history of the provision made it clear that Parliament had intended toremove judicial discretion from this part of the Act.[275] In holding that the provision should be struck down, rather than read down,Sopinka J. explained:“Reading down” by amending the clear intent of astatutory provision may be appropriate in some cases.The decision to do so requires a determination that thisremedy will constitute the lesser intrusion into the role ofthe legislature consistent with upholding the values andobjectives of the Charter. This is a determination that Iam not prepared to make in the absence of submissionsby the Attorney General of Canada … that readingdown will constitute a lesser intrusion. [Emphasisadded; citations omitted.][276] In contrast, in this case, reading in is consistent with the intent of thestatute. The living on the avails provision is not recent post-Charter legislation,as in Baron. The objective of the provision is to protect prostitutes fromexploitation. Far from being inconsistent with Parliament‟s intent, our proposedremedy aligns the wording of the provision with its objective, consistent withCharter values.[277] We are also persuaded that reading in is a far lesser intrusion than strikingdown the living on the avails provision in light of the presumption in s. 212(3). Aswe explained above, s. 213(3) assists in prosecuting pimps by creating arebuttable presumption that someone who lives with, or is habitually in the