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

Page: 99[242] The fact that the effects may go beyond preventing exploitation andcapture conduct by third persons that may benefit prostitutes and make theirwork safer does not render the legislation inconsistent with Parliament‟sobjectives. The victimization of prostitutes by pimps is related to the economicsof prostitution.Addressing that victimization by attempting to cut off theeconomic incentive is rationally connected to a reasonable apprehension ofharm, to use the test from Malmo-Levine. It cannot be said that the provisiondoes little or nothing to enhance the state interest in attempting to curbexploitation of prostitutes by pimps. This is true even if other provisions, such asthe exercising control provision in s. 212(1)(h), are aimed directly at pimping. 15(4) Is the living on the avails provision overbroad?[243] The application judge also found that the living on the avails provision isoverbroad. She reasoned that the means chosen are broader than the objectivesof preventing the exploitation of prostitutes and profiting from prostitution bypimps. She particularly focused on the fact that, as interpreted by this court inBarrow, the offence does not require proof of exploitation where the accusedprovides services to the prostitute but does not live with her.[244] The appellants submit that the application judge erred in concluding thatthe living on the avails provision is overbroad.They argue that a blanketprohibition is required because even the most benign conduct in relation to the15 In Grilo, at p. 522, Arbour J.A. referred to s. 212(1)(h) as “the classic pimping section”.