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

Page: 90intact other Criminal Code provisions that deal directly with the critical issue ofhuman trafficking. 12[218] Because we believe that it is possible to draft Charter-compliant legislationdirected at bawdy-houses, we suspend the declaration of invalidity as it relates tothe definition of “common bawdy-house” for 12 months from the date of therelease of these reasons.Does the prohibition against living on the avails of prostitution violate theprinciples of fundamental justice?[219] Of the three provisions at issue in this appeal, the prohibition against livingon the avails stands apart as the one that is specifically directed at the protectionof prostitutes.[220] Like the bawdy-house provisions, the living on the avails provision tracesits roots to early English criminal law, and has undergone a gradual evolutionover the past century. As we elaborate below, we agree with the applicationjudge that the objective of the modern living on the avails provision is to preventthe exploitation of prostitutes by pimps. We also agree with her synthesis of the12 Those sections include: s. 211: transporting persons to a bawdy-house; s. 212(1)(b): enticing a personwho is not a prostitute to a common bawdy-house; s. 212(1)(c): concealing a person in a bawdy-house; s.212(1)(d): procuring a person to become a prostitute; s. 212(1)(e): procuring a person to become aninmate of a bawdy-house; s. 212(1)(f): directing a person on arrival in Canada to a bawdy-house; s.212(1)(g): procuring a person to enter or leave Canada for the purpose of prostitution; s. 279.01:trafficking in persons; s. 279.011: trafficking in persons under age of 18 years; s. 279.02: profiting fromhuman trafficking.