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

Page: 127comparable to the impact of the Minister‟s decision on the health and safety ofthe drug users in PHS.[316] There is also a striking disparity between the robustness of the record onthe safety benefits of screening customers encountered on the streets, and thesafety benefits of moving indoors and paying support staff (i.e. activities currentlyprohibited by ss. 210 and 212(1)(j)).As we discussed above, the evidencebefore the application judge overwhelmingly indicated that indoor prostitution issafer than street prostitution. The evidence also showed that prostitutes workingindoors can significantly enhance their safety by establishing non-exploitativecommercial relationships with people such as receptionists and security guards.It was for these reasons that we concluded that the bawdy-house and living onthe avails provisions were grossly disproportionate. By contrast, there was limitedevidence to establish the extent to which face-to-face communication withcustomers will improve the safety of street prostitutes.[317] In fairness, it must be noted that the application judge considered theimpact of the communicating law in concert with the impact of the otherchallenged provisions.Though her analysis of the grossly disproportionateimpact of the communicating provision focused on screening customers, it isapparent that her conclusion was driven in large part by the fact that, under thecurrent regime, street prostitutes have no option to work indoors, even thoughthe record clearly demonstrated that, under the right conditions, indoor