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

Page: 87many vulnerabilities, street prostitutes would not and could not work in bawdyhousesrun by others. Yet, the bawdy-house provisions also deny prostitutes theability to operate from indoor locations where they live.[211] The respondents point to evidence that shows street prostitutes will moveindoors where that option is legal, as it is in England, where the prostitute worksalone from her own home with only a “maid”. The evidence from one of therespondents‟ experts, Professor John Lowman, is informative:But here again you see the key role of the law infacilitating the move off-street because a woman canwork in a single premise in Birmingham without runningafoul of the law. If we were to do a similar change of lawin Canada, one would be able to predict that you wouldsee a greater movement off-street of certain kind[s] ofprostitutes, those who can afford the infrastructure, witha possibility that others would organize thatinfrastructure for those desperate and marginalizedwomen on the Downtown Eastside who cannot pay forit…. 11[212] To conclude, the impact on those put at risk by the legislation is extreme.We have no hesitation endorsing the application judge‟s holding that the impactof the bawdy-house prohibition on prostitutes, and particularly street prostitutes,is grossly disproportionate to its legislative objective.11 Some of the interveners submit that not all street prostitutes would move indoors if that option werelegally available to them. We address this issue later in these reasons.