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

Page: 23THE GOVERNMENTS’ APPEAL[46] The Attorney General of Canada, joined by the Attorney General ofOntario, raise the following issues on appeal:1. Do Ms. Bedford and Ms. Scott have standing to bring the constitutionalchallenge?2. Are the respondents precluded from challenging the constitutionality of thebawdy-house and communicating provisions (ss. 210 and 213(1)(c)) by thedecision of the Supreme Court in the Prostitution Reference, coupled withthe principle of stare decisis?3. Does the communicating provision (s. 213(1)(c)) infringe s. 2(b) of theCharter?4. If the answer to question (3) is „yes‟, is this provision saved by s. 1 of theCharter?5. Do the challenged provisions deprive the respondents of the right to life,liberty and security of the person as guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter?6. If so, does the deprivation accord with the principles of fundamentaljustice?7. If the answer to question (6) is „no‟, are these provisions saved by s. 1 ofthe Charter?8. If any of the three challenged provisions is unconstitutional, what is theappropriate remedy?[47] Twelve organizations were granted intervener status on this appeal. Fiveinterveners or groups of interveners supported the application judge‟s decision.One group of interveners opposed it.One intervener representing severaldifferent women‟s organizations advocated for the asymmetrical criminalization of