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

Page: 131CONCLUSION[325] For the reasons set out above, we declare that ss. 210 and 212(1)(j) of theCriminal Code are unconstitutional.[326] To remedy the constitutional problem posed by s. 210, we strike the word“prostitution” from the definition of “common bawdy-house” in s. 197(1) as itapplies to s. 210. We suspend this declaration of invalidity for 12 months to giveParliament an opportunity to draft a Charter-compliant bawdy-house provision,should it elect to do so.[327] To remedy the constitutional problem posed by s. 212(1)(j), we read inwords of limitation to clarify that the prohibition on living on the avails ofprostitution applies only to those who do so “in circumstances of exploitation”.[328] We conclude that the communicating provision in s. 213(1)(c) does notoffend the principles of fundamental justice. Accordingly, it does not infringe therespondents‟ s. 7 Charter rights. We further conclude that the application judgewas bound by the Prostitution Reference to hold that s. 213(1)(c) is a reasonablelimit on the right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter. We allowthe appeal on these issues.[329] The stay of the application judge‟s decision is extended for 30 days fromthe date of the release of these reasons so that all parties can consider theirpositions. The practical effect is: