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

Page: 52prohibition had the effect in the real world in which it operated of forcing theapplicants to move from a safe injection site to sites where the health risksassociated with self-injection were much higher.[116] We see a parallel between the circumstances of drug addicts who,because of a criminal prohibition, cannot access a venue where they can safelyself-inject and therefore must resort to dangerous venues, and prostitutes who,because of criminal prohibitions, cannot work at venues using methods thatmaximize their personal safety, but must instead resort to venues and methodswhere the physical risks associated with prostitution are much greater. In bothsituations, the criminal prohibitions, as interpreted by the courts, operate onthose claiming the s. 7 breach in a way that interferes with their ability to takesteps to protect themselves while engaged in a dangerous activity. In one sense,the prostitutes‟ claim is even stronger in that prostitution, unlike the illicitpossession and use of narcotics, is not an unlawful activity.[117] The connection between the criminal prohibitions in the three challengedprovisions and the increased risk of physical harm to prostitutes is not diminishedby the acknowledged reality that prostitution is inherently dangerous in virtuallyany circumstance. Nor does it alter the connection between the prohibitions andthe added risk posed to prostitutes to acknowledge that some prostitutes wouldnot avail themselves of any of the safety measures currently criminalized even ifthe criminal prohibitions did not exist.On the evidence accepted by the