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

Page: 125application judge relied on that evidence, informed by her own common sense, tofind that screening customers is essential to enhancing the safety of streetprostitutes, we think her conclusion reaches well beyond the limits of theevidence.[312] While it is fair to say that a street prostitute might be able to avoid a “baddate” by negotiating details such as payment, services to be performed, andcondom use up front, it is equally likely that the customer could pass muster atan early stage, only to turn violent once the transaction is underway. It is alsopossible that the prostitute may proceed even in the face of perceived danger,either because her judgment is impaired by drugs or alcohol, or because she isso desperate for money that she feels compelled to take the risk.[313] The evidence before the application judge also indicated that, while faceto-facecommunication is an important aspect of customer screening, it is not theonly method prostitutes use to assess the risk of harm. One of the respondents‟experts who has done extensive research on street prostitution testified that mostof the prostitutes she interviewed also relied on their intuition to decide whetheror not to accept a job.Street prostitutes also employ techniques such asassessing the prospective customer‟s appearance, checking the backseat of hiscar, and checking for the presence or absence of door handles and lock releasebuttons. Many street prostitutes also reported that they work with friends whotake down the licence plate numbers of the cars they get into. This evidence