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

Page: 136findings, the relevant Criminal Code provisions,individually and in tandem, increase the risk of physicalharm to persons engaged in prostitution, a lawfulactivity. They increase the harm by criminalizingobvious, and what on their face would appear to bepotentially somewhat effective, safety measures. Theconnection between the existence of the criminalprohibitions and the added risk to those engaged inprostitution is, on the facts as found by the applicationjudge, not obscure or tangential. An added risk ofphysical harm compromises personal integrity andautonomy and strikes at the core of the right to securityof the person. On the facts as found, the added risk toprostitutes takes the form of an increased risk of seriousphysical harm or perhaps even worse. [Emphasisadded.][342] In a similar vein, my colleagues later state that “[t]he non-exploitativeconduct criminalized by the living on the avails provision and the communicativeconduct criminalized by the communicating provision contribute in an equallyself-evident manner to potential risks to prostitutes” (emphasis added).[343] In the passages above, my colleagues equate the three impugnedprovisions and their effects on all prostitutes. However, in other places, mycolleagues actually recognize the special vulnerability of street prostitutes. Thefollowing passage vividly illustrates this point:[T]he evidence in this case suggests that there is a veryhigh homicide rate among prostitutes and theoverwhelming majority of victims are street prostitutes.As well, while indoor prostitutes are subjected toviolence, the rate of violence is much higher, and thenature of the violence is more extreme, against streetprostitutes than those working indoors.