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

Page: 45steps that could reduce the risk of such violence.[Emphasis added.](4) The appellants’ arguments[102] The appellants accept that a law that creates a real risk to physical safetyor well-being interferes with the right to security of the person under s. 7. Theappellants maintain, however, that the application judge erred in finding anyconnection between the three challenged provisions and any added risk ofphysical harm to the respondents.Their submissions challenge both theapplication judge‟s legal analysis of what the appellants call the “causation issue”and her evidentiary findings relevant to that issue.[103] The appellants attack the evidentiary findings on two fronts. They arguethat the application judge made several errors in her approach to the evidenceand that these processing errors undermine the validity of her ultimate findingthat the challenged provisions place prostitutes at a greater risk of physical harm.The appellants also argue that, apart from any processing errors, the evidenceconsidered as a whole does not support the finding of a connection between thechallenged provisions and an increase in the risk posed to prostitutes. This latterargument begins with the contention that the application judge‟s finding is notowed any deference, and that this court can and must make its own assessmentof the evidence. We will address the causation argument first.