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

Page: 143the violence faced by street prostitutes across Canada is, in a word,overwhelming. One does not need to conjure up the face of Robert Pickton toknow that this is true.[360] Any measure that denies an already vulnerable person the opportunity toprotect herself from serious physical violence, including assault, rape andmurder, involves a grave infringement of that individual‟s security of the person.The infringement caused by the communicating provision is especially significantin light of the reality that many prostitutes have few alternative means ofprotecting themselves. Putting aside the fiction that all prostitutes can easilyleave prostitution by choice or practise their occupation indoors, thecommunicating provision closes off valuable options that street prostitutes dohave to try to protect themselves.[361] Sixth, I do not accept my colleagues‟ conclusion that “the application judgealso erred by equating this case with PHS.” After a brief discussion, mycolleagues state the rationale for their conclusion in this fashion: “The impact ofthe communicating provision on the dangers posed to street prostitutes is simplynot comparable to the impact of the Minister‟s decision on the health and safetyof the drug users in PHS.”