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

Page: 139street prostitutes from Vancouver, Katrina Pacey told the subcommittee that thecommunicating provision results in rushed negotiations, and does not allow forprostitutes to take “the time required to adequately assess a client and to followtheir own instincts, or to maybe note if that client has appeared on a bad datelist.” The expert evidence of Dr. MacDonald, Dr. Maticka-Tyndale, Dr. Benoit andDr. Shaver supports this position as well.[350] In my view, the affidavit evidence in this case provides critical insight intothe experience and knowledge of people who have worked on the streets, andwho have been exposed to the risk of violence first-hand. This type of evidenceshould not be set aside lightly. The trial judge had a firm basis on which to findthat the communicating provision endangers prostitutes by denying them theopportunity to screen clients.[351] Fourth, my colleagues further underestimate the magnitude of the securityof the person infringement by focusing exclusively on screening and ignoringother ways in which the communicating provision adversely affects prostitutes‟safety.[352] My colleagues overlook evidence that, instead of reducing streetprostitution, the communicating provision forces prostitutes into isolated anddangerous areas. As the application judge pointed out, at para. 331 of herreasons: