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

Page: 53application judge, many prostitutes would and could take advantage of thosemeasures, but for the risk of criminal sanction.Finally, the inability to quantifythe added risk to prostitutes flowing from the legislation is no bar to a finding ofadded risk sufficient to engage security of the person. Where the limitation onsecurity of the person is in the nature of an increased risk of serious physicalharm or worse, virtually any added risk that is beyond de minimis is sufficient toconstitute an infringement on security of the person.[118] The appellants contend that virtually all legislation has the potential tointerfere indirectly with some manifestation of the right to life, liberty and securityof the person. The appellants argue that unless the court requires a strongcausal connection between the legislation and the alleged infringement, s. 7 willbecome dangerously overextended.[119] We do not share the appellants‟ concern. A finding that legislation limits aclaimant‟s security of the person does not determine the constitutionality of thelegislation, nor affect its operation. That finding only subjects the challengedlegislation to a principles of fundamental justice analysis.[120] The appellants‟ concern about overreaching in s. 7 is particularlymisplaced in respect of legislation that creates criminal offences. As indicatedabove, that legislation will inevitably be subject to a principles of fundamentaljustice analysis because it will always engage the liberty interest.A