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

Page: 49[110] We examine the relevant provisions in some detail below. For presentpurposes, it is sufficient to say that on our interpretation, the bawdy-houseprovisions criminalize the practice of prostitution at a fixed indoor location; theliving on the avails provision criminalizes the use of support and security stafffunded by the proceeds of the prostitution, regardless of whether the relationshipis an exploitative one; and the communicating provision prohibits any attempt bystreet prostitutes to screen potential customers by speaking with thosecustomers in a public place for the purpose of prostitution.[111] On the facts as found by the application judge, each of the provisionscriminalizes conduct that would mitigate, to some degree, the risk posed toprostitutes. On those findings, the relevant Criminal Code provisions, individuallyand in tandem, increase the risk of physical harm to persons engaged inprostitution, a lawful activity. They increase the harm by criminalizing obvious,and what on their face would appear to be potentially somewhat effective, safetymeasures. The connection between the existence of the criminal prohibitionsand the added risk to those engaged in prostitution is, on the facts as found bythe application judge, not obscure or tangential. An added risk of physical harmcompromises personal integrity and autonomy and strikes at the core of the rightto security of the person. On the facts as found, the added risk to prostitutestakes the form of an increased risk of serious physical harm or perhaps even