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

Page: 78problem of prostitution and pornography, these issues are going to be dealt within the new year”. 7[185] No comprehensive legislative scheme was introduced in the following year,nor has it been since.[186] As the application judge pointed out, the Supreme Court considered theobjectives of the bawdy-house provisions in the pre-Charter case of Rockert,where Estey J. wrote, at p. 712:The authorities leave little, if any, doubt that the mischiefto which these offences were directed was not thebetting, gaming and prostitution per se, but rather theharm to the interests of the community in which suchactivities were carried on in a notorious and habitualmanner.[187] In other words, the provisions are aimed at the harm to the interests of thecommunity. There is no evidence of a broader objective of controlling theinstitutionalization or commercialization of prostitution, with the ultimate aim oferadicating or discouraging prostitution.[188] In Rockert, Estey J. also referred with approval to the historical analysis ofthe provisions by Schroeder J.A., dissenting, in R. v. Patterson, [1967] 1 O.R.429 (C.A.), at p. 435: 87 Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of Legislative Committee on Bill C-49 (November 7, 1985), p.8.10.8 On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this court‟s decision, agreeing with the reasons ofSchroeder J.A. that the premises were not shown to be a common bawdy-house: [1968] S.C.R. 157.