This forum is not purely dedicated to legal discourse. While I may attempt to 'raise the bar' with some pieces relating to law and being a criminal defense lawyer in Toronto, I also plan to use this blog as a medium to express my often critical thoughts on the daily grind that is life. Throw in some random videos and internet fodder, and the bar is sure to be lowered.


Monday, 26 March 2012

The Conclusion of the Ontario Court of Appeal's 'prostitution' case

CONCLUSION
[325] For the reasons set out above, we declare that ss. 210 and 212(1)(j) of the
Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
[326] To remedy the constitutional problem posed by s. 210, we strike the word
“prostitution” from the definition of “common bawdy-house” in s. 197(1) as it
applies to s. 210. We suspend this declaration of invalidity for 12 months to give
Parliament an opportunity to draft a Charter-compliant bawdy-house provision,
should it elect to do so.
[327] To remedy the constitutional problem posed by s. 212(1)(j), we read in
words of limitation to clarify that the prohibition on living on the avails of
prostitution applies only to those who do so “in circumstances of exploitation”.
[328] We conclude that the communicating provision in s. 213(1)(c) does not
offend the principles of fundamental justice. Accordingly, it does not infringe the
respondents‟ s. 7 Charter rights. We further conclude that the application judge
was bound by the Prostitution Reference to hold that s. 213(1)(c) is a reasonable
limit on the right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter. We allow
the appeal on these issues.
[329] The stay of the application judge‟s decision is extended for 30 days from
the date of the release of these reasons so that all parties can consider their
positions. The practical effect is:
Page: 132
The declaration of invalidity in respect of the bawdy-house provisions is
suspended for one year from the date of the release of these reasons.
The amended living on the avails provision takes effect 30 days from the
date of the release of these reasons.
The communicating provision remains in full force.
[330] We thank all counsel, including counsel for the interveners, for their
thorough and thoughtful submissions. This is not a case for costs.
Signed: “Doherty J.A.”
“M. Rosenberg J.A.”
“K. Feldman J.A.”

No comments:

Post a Comment