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

Page: 17the definition of “common bawdy-house” in s. 197(1) and the prohibition in s. 210)are combating neighbourhood disruption or disorder, and safeguarding publichealth and safety.[30] Relying principally on Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions, (1961)[1962] A.C. 220 (H.L.), and R. v. Downey, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10, the applicationjudge held, at para. 259, that the prohibition on living on the avails of prostitution(s. 212(1)(j)) is aimed at “preventing the exploitation of prostitutes and profitingfrom prostitution by pimps.”[31] Relying exclusively on the Prostitution Reference, and in particularDickson C.J.‟s reasons, the application judge held, at para. 274, that theobjective of the communicating provision (s. 213(1)(c)) is “to curtail streetsolicitation and the social nuisance which it creates” (emphasis in applicationjudge‟s reasons).Section 7 of the Charter: life, liberty and security of the person[32] Citing Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, and the ProstitutionReference, the application judge held, at para. 281, that “[t]he availability ofimprisonment [i.e. a deprivation of liberty] for all of the impugned provisions issufficient to trigger s. 7 scrutiny”. After a careful review of the competing expertevidence on this point, the application judge also held that the challenged