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

Page: 83However, we have concluded that these are not the objectives of the bawdyhouseprovisions. The blanket prohibition cannot be upheld on that basis.[201] We return to the test from Heywood and ask whether the blanketprohibition is necessary to achieve the state objectives we have identified. Indoing so, we accept that it is open to Parliament to opt for a blanket prohibitionbecause a narrower prohibition would not be effective in meeting the legislativeobjectives: see Rodriguez, at p. 607.[202] Moreover, as we explained above, we also take a somewhat moreexpansive view of the public health and safety objectives of the legislation thandid the application judge. Health and safety of the public is a broad objective,which can encompass laws that target problems such as human trafficking andchild exploitation. These objectives would have been within the contemplation ofParliament as the scope of the bawdy-house provisions was gradually extendedin the late 19th and early 20th centuries in response to the pressing socialproblem of so-called “white slavery”. This history is detailed in the Fraser Reportand discussed at para. 227 of the application judge‟s reasons.[203] Nevertheless, even taking into account this broader understanding ofpublic health and safety, it is our view that the application judge properly foundthat the provisions are overly broad. The legislation is not reasonably tailored to