Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72
The Supreme Court issued its decision on Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford at noon today. Our last exam was from 9:00am to 12:00pm this morning and by the time the proctor said "stop typing", my friend had already checked his email. (He's on the Lexum mailing list, the big nerd.)
CBC.ca:
The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the country's anti-prostitution laws in a unanimous decision, and given Parliament one year to come up with new legislation - should it choose to do so.
Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, writing for a unanimous court:
(ii) Compliance With the Principles of Fundamental Justice
[133] The courts below considered whether the bawdy-house prohibition is overbroad, or grossly disproportionate.
[134] I agree with them that the negative impact of the bawdy-house prohibition on the applicants’ security of the person is grossly disproportionate to its objective. I therefore find it unnecessary to decide whether the prohibition is overbroad insofar as it applies to a single prostitute operating out of her own home (C.A., at para. 204). The application judge found on the evidence that moving to a bawdy-house would improve prostitutes’ safety by providing “the safety benefits of proximity to others, familiarity with surroundings, security staff, closed-circuit television and other such monitoring that a permanent indoor location can facilitate” (para. 427). Balancing this against the evidence demonstrating that “complaints about nuisance arising from indoor prostitution establishments are rare” (ibid.), she found that the harmful impact of the provision was grossly disproportionate to its purpose.
[135] The Court of Appeal acknowledged that empirical evidence on the subject is difficult to gather, since almost all the studies focus on street prostitution. However, it concluded that the evidence supported the application judge’s findings on gross disproportionality - in particular, the evidence of the high homicide rate among prostitutes, with the overwhelming number of victims being street prostitutes. The Court of Appeal agreed that moving indoors amounts to a “basic safety precaution” for prostitutes, one which the bawdy-house provision makes illegal (paras. 206-7).
[136] In my view, this conclusion was not in error. The harms identified by the courts below are grossly disproportionate to the deterrence of community disruption that is the object of the law. Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes. A law that prevents street prostitutes from resorting to a safe haven such as Grandma’s House while a suspected serial killer prowls the streets, is a law that has lost sight of its purpose.
Section 212(1)(j): Living on the Avails of Prostitution
Emphasis mine.
But of course the most important point of this post is that I HAVE FINISHED EXAMS HUZZAH.
I prefer comments on Dreamwidth |
comment(s)
CBC.ca:
The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the country's anti-prostitution laws in a unanimous decision, and given Parliament one year to come up with new legislation - should it choose to do so.
Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, writing for a unanimous court:
(ii) Compliance With the Principles of Fundamental Justice
[133] The courts below considered whether the bawdy-house prohibition is overbroad, or grossly disproportionate.
[134] I agree with them that the negative impact of the bawdy-house prohibition on the applicants’ security of the person is grossly disproportionate to its objective. I therefore find it unnecessary to decide whether the prohibition is overbroad insofar as it applies to a single prostitute operating out of her own home (C.A., at para. 204). The application judge found on the evidence that moving to a bawdy-house would improve prostitutes’ safety by providing “the safety benefits of proximity to others, familiarity with surroundings, security staff, closed-circuit television and other such monitoring that a permanent indoor location can facilitate” (para. 427). Balancing this against the evidence demonstrating that “complaints about nuisance arising from indoor prostitution establishments are rare” (ibid.), she found that the harmful impact of the provision was grossly disproportionate to its purpose.
[135] The Court of Appeal acknowledged that empirical evidence on the subject is difficult to gather, since almost all the studies focus on street prostitution. However, it concluded that the evidence supported the application judge’s findings on gross disproportionality - in particular, the evidence of the high homicide rate among prostitutes, with the overwhelming number of victims being street prostitutes. The Court of Appeal agreed that moving indoors amounts to a “basic safety precaution” for prostitutes, one which the bawdy-house provision makes illegal (paras. 206-7).
[136] In my view, this conclusion was not in error. The harms identified by the courts below are grossly disproportionate to the deterrence of community disruption that is the object of the law. Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes. A law that prevents street prostitutes from resorting to a safe haven such as Grandma’s House while a suspected serial killer prowls the streets, is a law that has lost sight of its purpose.
Section 212(1)(j): Living on the Avails of Prostitution
Emphasis mine.
But of course the most important point of this post is that I HAVE FINISHED EXAMS HUZZAH.
I prefer comments on Dreamwidth |
comment(s)