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

Page: 130of an impact on prostitutes to engage their s. 7 rights to liberty and security of theperson. We are also satisfied that the vulnerability of street prostitutes, andespecially survival sex workers who may be unable to move indoors regardlessof the fate of the bawdy-house provisions, increases the negative impact of thecommunicating provision on their s. 7 rights.However, when the weight of thelegislative objective is balanced against the weight of the impact properlyattributed to the legislation and not to a myriad of other factors, we cannot saythat the scale drops into the range of gross disproportionality.[323] We also conclude that the application judge erred in considering the harmto the wider community in weighing the “impact” factor of the communicatingprovision. To repeat, the application judge held, at para. 434, that the harmsuffered by prostitutes as a result of the challenged provisions, including thecommunicating provision, “impacts upon the well-being of the larger society.” Inour view, such considerations are irrelevant at this stage of the grossdisproportionality analysis, where the court‟s sole focus is on the impact on theclaimant’s s. 7 rights.[324] In sum, we are satisfied that the communicating provision does not violateany of the three principles of fundamental justice in issue. It therefore does notinfringe s. 7 of the Charter.