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

Page: 89declaration of invalidity of the challenged sections. To answer this question, shesurveyed the other, unchallenged, Criminal Code provisions that offer protectionto communities and to prostitutes. She concluded that there were sufficientsafeguards in the other provisions to ensure that striking down the challengedprovisions would not leave a dangerous vacuum. However, the application judgerecognized that a consequence of her declaration would be that unlicensedbrothels may be operated in a way that was not in the public interest. Shetherefore stayed her decision for 30 days to permit counsel to make submissionson how that problem might be addressed. As we have indicated, that stay wasextended in subsequent orders.[216] We have considered whether some lesser remedy, short of a declarationof invalidity, is appropriate to cure the s. 7 breach caused by the bawdy-houseprovisions. In our view, no lesser remedy than that chosen by the applicationjudge is appropriate. A Charter-compliant solution requires a full reconsiderationof the purpose and effect of the criminalization of bawdy-houses. This is a taskfor Parliament.[217] We should not be taken as holding that any bawdy-house prohibition wouldbe unconstitutional. It would be open to Parliament to draft a bawdy-houseprovision that is consistent with the modern values of human dignity and equalityand is directed at specific pressing social problems, while also complying with theCharter. We note that striking down the current bawdy-house prohibition leaves