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

Page: 115and core societal values, such as human dignity and equality.Given thatDickson C.J. and Wilson J., who in combination were speaking for a majority ofthe Supreme Court on this issue in the Prostitution Reference, expressly rejectedthis broader objective, we cannot agree with the position of the Attorney Generalof Ontario.(3) Is the communicating provision arbitrary?[287] The application judge found that the prohibition on communicating for thepurpose of prostitution in s. 213(1)(c) does not infringe the arbitrariness principle.In her view, the evidence showed that the provision was largely ineffective ateradicating the various forms of social nuisance arising from the public display ofthe sale of sex, the objective identified in the Prostitution Reference for thecommunicating offence. The application judge relied upon evidence showingthat enforcement of the provision did not reduce the number of street prostitutes:various reports demonstrated that the numbers of street prostitutes were notreduced; they were simply displaced to new areas. The application judgecorrectly recognized, however, that just because a law is largely ineffective doesnot necessarily mean that it is arbitrary or irrational.We agree with herconclusion that the communicating provision is not arbitrary.[288] It is important to look back at the situation facing Parliament whens. 213(1)(c) was enacted. Because of the restrictive interpretation given to the