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

Page: 147their efforts to work collectively. It will prevent them from communicating withtheir clients to assess potential danger. It will continue to drive street prostitutesto isolated, and potentially very dangerous, locations. All this implicates streetprostitutes‟ personal safety and, in far too many cases, the fragile line betweenlife and death.[370] I conclude by recalling this passage from my colleagues‟ reasons:When a court is required to decide whether there is asufficient connection between crime-creating legislationand an alleged interference with an individual‟s right tosecurity of the person, the court must examine the effectof that legislation in the world in which it actuallyoperates. This assessment is a practical and pragmaticone. [Emphasis added.][371] The world in which street prostitutes actually operate is the streets, on theirown. It is not a world of hotels, homes or condos. It is not a world ofreceptionists, drivers and bodyguards.[372] The world in which street prostitutes actually operate is a world of darkstreets and barren, isolated, silent places. It is a dangerous world, with alwaysthe risk of violence and even death.[373] My colleagues recognize, correctly, that the effects of two Criminal Codeprovisions that prevent indoor prostitutes‟ safety measures are grosslydisproportionate to their valid legislative objectives. I regret that they do notreach the same conclusion with respect to a third provision that has a