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

Page: 69[158] The appellants frame their argument concerning the objectives in slightlydifferent ways. The Attorney General of Canada submits that the legislation isdesigned to denounce and deter the most harmful and public emanations ofprostitution, to protect prostitutes, and to reduce the societal harms thataccompany prostitution.[159] The Attorney General of Ontario adopts the objectives identified by theAttorney General of Canada in part, but relying upon R. v. Mara (1996), 27 O.R.(3d) 643 (C.A.), affirmed [1997] 2 S.C.R. 630, it goes further and argues that theobjective of the prostitution provisions is to eradicate prostitution. Counsel relieson the following passage from this court‟s decision in Mara, at p. 651:Although prostitution itself is not a crime in Canada,Parliament has chosen to attack prostitution indirectlyby criminalizing prostitution-related activities. Thepurpose of doing so is to eliminate the harms thatprostitution causes. In [the Prostitution Reference],Lamer J. explained that the bawdy-house provisions,procuring and pimping provisions, and disturbing thepeace provisions are all aimed at the harms ofprostitution. Parliament wants to eradicate prostitution.The reason Parliament wants to eradicate prostitution isbecause it is harmful, a form of violence against women,related to men's historical dominance over women.[Emphasis added.][160] The Attorney General of Ontario argues that the application judge erred byfailing to refer to Mara and by failing to recognize that it was an authoritativestatement from this court about the objectives of the challenged legislation.Because of the emphasis counsel places on Mara, we will deal with it before