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

Page: 124In this case, it is the unconstitutional aspects of the bawdy-house and living onthe avails provisions that could account in large measure for the inability ofprostitutes to move indoors and off the street. As those provisions will no longerbe in force, no weight should be given to the ineffectiveness of thecommunicating provision in the gross disproportionality analysis because itremains to be seen whether the law will be effective in the future in achievingParliament‟s objective.(b)The application judge over-emphasized the impact of thecommunicating provision on the respondents’ security ofthe person[310] On the other side of the scale, the application judge found that thecommunicating provision endangers prostitutes by denying them the “essentialtool” of customer screening.In so holding, the application judge made noattempt to quantify the harm street prostitutes face by virtue of thecommunicating law, as distinct from the harm that they face due to other socialand economic factors. She also failed to point to evidence in the record thatwould support her finding that face-to-face communication with a prospectivecustomer is essential to enhancing prostitutes‟ safety. On our reading of therecord, such a finding was not available.[311] There was anecdotal evidence from prostitutes that they often felt rushedin their negotiations with potential customers, and would quickly get into thecustomers‟ cars to avoid detection by the police. To the extent that the