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

Page: 59arbitrariness, overbreadth and gross disproportionality claims, we will treat herfindings on those issues as we do her findings relating to the security of theperson argument. We will not defer to those findings.[132] We begin our assessment of the application judge‟s findings as they relateto the security of the person claim by examining the legal regime under whichprostitutes operate in Canada.[133] As we have explained, prostitution is not criminal or in any way illegal.However, many activities that would be lawful in any other context are criminal ifdone in relation to prostitution. The application record is replete with testimonyfrom individuals who have firsthand knowledge of how the present legal regimeoperates and the impact it has on prostitutes engaged in prostitution. In ourview, that experiential evidence, buttressed by observations in severalgovernment reports, makes a very strong case for the respondents‟ claim that thelegislation puts them at added risk of serious physical harm.[134] We also agree with counsel for the respondents‟ submission that much ofwhat the experiential witnesses said about the impact of the challenged CriminalCode provisions on their lives as prostitutes is self-evident and exactly what onewould expect.Everyone agrees that prostitution is a dangerous activity forprostitutes. It seems obvious that it is more dangerous for a prostitute if shegoes to some unknown destination controlled by the customer, rather than