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

Page: 116predecessor provision in Hutt, it had become impossible to mitigate the harm toneighbourhoods caused by street prostitution. The impact on neighbourhoodswas reviewed at length in the Fraser Report and was described by Dickson C.J.in the Prostitution Reference, at p. 1136:Much street soliciting occurs in specified areas wherethe congregation of prostitutes and their customersamounts to a nuisance. In effect, the legislationdiscourages prostitutes and customers fromconcentrating their activities in any particular location.While it is the cumulative impact of individualtransactions concentrated in a public area thateffectively produces the social nuisance at which thelegislation in part aims, Parliament can only act byfocusing on individual transactions. The notion ofnuisance in connection with street soliciting extendsbeyond interference with the individual citizen tointerference with the public at large, that is with theenvironment represented by streets, public places andneighbouring premises.[289] We do not accept the application judge‟s view of the evidence that theprovision has not been effective in reducing social nuisance and harms toneighbourhoods.There was evidence in this case, not rejected by theapplication judge, that enforcement of the communicating prohibition has beeneffective in protecting residential neighbourhoods from the harms associated withstreet prostitution. Residents of vulnerable neighbourhoods provided dramaticevidence of the harms associated with street prostitution including noise,impeding traffic, children witnessing acts of prostitution, harassment of residents,problems associated with drug use by prostitutes, unsanitary acts, violence,