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

Page: 19In conclusion, these three provisions prevent prostitutesfrom taking precautions, some extremely rudimentary,that can decrease the risk of violence towards them.Prostitutes are faced with deciding between their libertyand their security of the person. Thus, while it isultimately the client who inflicts violence upon aprostitute, in my view the law plays a sufficientcontributory role in preventing a prostitute from takingsteps that could reduce the risk of such violence.Section 7 of the Charter: principles of fundamental justice[36] Having found that the challenged provisions contribute to a deprivation ofthe respondents‟ liberty and security of the person, the application judgeconsidered whether the deprivation accorded with the principles of fundamentaljustice. In particular, she analysed whether or not the challenged provisions,separately or together, are arbitrary or overbroad, or if their effects are grosslydisproportionate to their legislative objectives.[37] The application judge held that the prohibition on bawdy-houses is notarbitrary in and of itself because it is directed toward the legislative objectives ofcombating neighbourhood disruption or disorder, and safeguarding public healthand safety. However, she held, at para. 385, that the prohibition is arbitrarywhen it is considered in concert with the other challenged provisions, becausethe cumulative effect of the legislative scheme may actually be to exacerbate thesocial problems caused by prostitution.[38] The application judge went on to hold that the bawdy-house prohibition isoverbroad because it catches not just large-scale commercial establishments,