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

Page: 56a role in determining whether legislation interferes with the right to life, liberty andsecurity of the person.The legislative objectives become important whenexamining whether any infringement is inconsistent with the principles offundamental justice.[125] If the application judge‟s findings stand, her conclusion that the challengedprovisions, individually and taken together, limit the respondents‟ security of theperson is unassailable. We turn now to the challenges to those findings.(b)Should the findings stand?[126] We will first determine the appropriate standard of appellate review. Theapplication judge‟s conclusion that the relevant Criminal Code provisionsinterfere with the respondents‟ security of the person was predicated on herfindings that:prostitution is inherently dangerous for prostitutes;there are “safety enhancing” measures that prostitutes can take to mitigatethe risk of physical harm;each of the challenged Criminal Code provisions criminalizes at least one“safety enhancing” measure that prostitutes could take to reduce thedanger of physical harm; andthe criminalization of measures that could make prostitution safer has theeffect of increasing the risk of physical harm to prostitutes who engage inprostitution.[127] The appellants contend that all the findings outlined above are properlycharacterized as social or legislative findings of fact and not as adjudicative