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

Page: 91case law that has interpreted this provision to apply generally to people whoprovide goods or services to prostitutes, because they are prostitutes.Thisinterpretation includes, but is not restricted to, pimps.[221] We do not share the application judge‟s view that the living on the availsprovision is arbitrary, since it targets the legislative objective of preventing theexploitation of prostitutes by pimps. However, we agree with the applicationjudge that the provision is overbroad because it captures conduct that is in noway exploitative. On this point, we reject the appellants‟ submission that nothingshort of the blanket prohibition will suffice to protect prostitutes from exploitation.We further agree with the application judge that the provision is grosslydisproportionate to the extent that it criminalizes non-exploitative commercialrelationships between prostitutes and others, and particularly with those who mayenhance prostitutes‟ safety.[222] The application judge held that the s. 7 breach could only be cured bystriking down the living on the avails provision. We disagree. Instead, we readwords of limitation into the text of s. 212(1)(j) so that the prohibition is againstliving on the avails of prostitution in circumstances of exploitation. This aligns thelanguage of the provision with the vital legislative goal that animates it, and curesthe constitutional defect.