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

Page: 96that she is in the business of rendering services to theescorts because they are prostitutes. [Emphasis added.][235] The court went on to make it clear that the living on the avails offence wasmade out despite the lack of exploitation, and even in the face of evidence thatthe accused was offering a valuable service to prostitutes. The court noted, atpara. 31, the policy argument that if women could not form these kinds ofcommercial relationships they would be driven onto the streets where they wouldbe much more vulnerable, isolated and subject to violence. Nevertheless, thecourt in Barrow held that, absent a constitutional challenge, the section asinterpreted by the courts had to be applied.(d) Putting it all together: the current interpretation of the livingon the avails offence[236] The result of Shaw, Grilo and Barrow is that people who supply services toprostitutes, because they are prostitutes, commit the living on the avails offence.Thus, a bodyguard, driver, receptionist, bookkeeper, manager or anyone elseproviding services to a prostitute, for the purpose of her prostitution, comes withinthe offence.The offence does not require proof of exploitation unless theaccused lives with the prostitute, nor is it confined to the classic notion of a“pimp” as described by Cory J. in Downey, at p. 36, as the personification of“abusive and exploitative malevolence”.