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

Page: 81real connection to the objective of combating neighbourhood disruption ordisorder. That is an accurate assessment of the evidence.[195] In addition, there was evidence before the application judge that bawdyhousescan be used to conceal under-aged or trafficked prostitutes. Frequently,police investigating residential bawdy-houses have found vulnerable womenbrought in from abroad or under-aged girls working as prostitutes. Theappellants‟ witnesses gave evidence that bawdy-houses are often an integralpart of human trafficking syndicates where victims are trained and housed, andthen transported elsewhere for the purpose of sexual exploitation.Massageparlours or strip clubs, which can in some circumstances constitute bawdyhouses,can also harm the community through noise and harassment. Thisevidence brings the bawdy-house provisions within the scope of the objectives ofcombating neighbourhood disruption or disorder and risks to public health andsafety.[196] We therefore agree with the application judge that the bawdy-houseprovisions do not infringe the arbitrariness principle of fundamental justice. Wenote that the fact that the bawdy-house provisions are rarely enforced is not ameasure of arbitrariness.In any event, the evidence shows that lack ofenforcement may be related to the difficulty of investigating these crimes.