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

Page: 82[197] The application judge also concluded that, while the bawdy-houseprovisions are not arbitrary in and of themselves, they are arbitrary whenconsidered in concert with the other challenged provisions.We find itunnecessary to address this conclusion given our disposition of the overbreadthand gross disproportionality issues, to which we now turn.(4) Are the bawdy-house provisions overbroad?[198] As we explained above, the application judge concluded that the bawdyhouseprovisions are overbroad because they catch conduct that does notcontribute to the social harm sought to be curtailed.[199] We have already rejected the appellants‟ submissions that the applicationjudge mischaracterized the objectives of the legislation and adopted the wrongtest for overbreadth.This leaves the difficult question of whether a blanketprohibition on all bawdy-houses is necessary to achieve Parliament‟s objectives.[200] The wide definition of common bawdy-house under s. 197(1) of theCriminal Code includes not only large establishments, which are likely tocontribute to neighbourhood disruption and disorder, but also single prostitutesworking alone from their own homes. If the legislative objectives of the bawdyhouseprovisions included the eradication of prostitution and the deterrence ofthe sex industry, it may be that a blanket prohibition would not be overbroad.