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

Page: 114Public solicitation for the purposes of prostitution isclosely associated with street congestion and noise, oralharassment of non-participants and general detrimentaleffects on passers-by or bystanders, especially children.In my opinion, the eradication of the nuisance-relatedproblems caused by street solicitation is a pressing andsubstantial concern. I find, therefore, that sending themessage that street solicitation for the purposes ofprostitution is not to be tolerated constitutes a validlegislative aim. [Emphasis added.][285] The appellants submit that while the application judge accepted these asthe objectives of the legislation, she adopted narrower objectives when she cameto the overbreadth and disproportionality analyses. In the overbreadth analysis,the application judge focused, at para. 409, only on “street congestion and noise,oral harassment of non-participants and general detrimental effects on passersbyor bystanders, especially children”. In the disproportionality analysis, shereferred, at para. 432, to “noise, street congestion, and the possibility that thepractice of prostitution will interfere with those nearby”. The Attorney General ofCanada argues that the application judge failed to take account of theseriousness of the “nuisance” presented by street prostitution, which is attendedby drug use and other crimes. We will return to this issue when we considergross disproportionality.[286] The Attorney General of Ontario again argues for an even broaderobjective, submitting that s. 213(1)(c) targets the normalizing effect exposure toprostitution can have on children and promotes the proper functioning of society