Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford

Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford

The Court held that ss.210 (as it applies to prostitution), 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code infringe s.7 by depriving sex workers of security of the person in ways not in accordance with principles of fundamental justice (arbitrariness/overbreadth/gross disproportionality). The word "prostitution" was struck from the definition of "common bawdy-house" in s.197(1) as it applies to s.210; the declaration of invalidity was suspended for one year to allow Parliament to respond. The application judge was entitled to revisit Prostitution Reference on novel s.7 security issues and her findings on social facts attract deference absent palpable and overriding error.

Citation
2013 SCC 72
Parties
Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Attorney General of Canada; Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Attorney General of Ontario; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Terri Jean Bedford; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Amy Lebovitch; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Valerie Scott
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Law Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Ontario Court of Appeal (reasons Delivered Dec 20, 2013)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; cross-appeal allowed. Sections 210 (as it relates to prostitution), 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c) declared inconsistent with the Charter. Word "prostitution" struck from definition of "common bawdy-house" in s.197(1) as it applies to s.210. Declaration of invalidity suspended for one year.
Legal Topics
Section 7 Security of the Person, Section 2(b) Freedom of Expression, Bawdy House Prohibition (ss.197/210), Living on the Avails (s.212(1)(j)), Public Communication Prohibition (s.213(1)(c)), Stare Decisis and Revisiting Precedent, Deference to Trial Findings, Principles of Fundamental Justice: Arbitrariness, Overbreadth, Gross Disproportionality, S.1 Justification, Remedial Suspension
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Charter Law Public Nuisance Law Remedies Section 7 Security of the Person Section 2(b) Freedom of Expression Bawdy House Prohibition (ss.197/210) +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General of Canada

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Attorney General of Ontario

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Terri Jean Bedford

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

Amy Lebovitch

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

Valerie Scott

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Law Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Ontario Court of Appeal (reasons Delivered Dec 20, 2013)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss.210, 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code infringe s.7 security of the person
  2. 2 Whether s.213(1)(c) infringes s.2(b) freedom of expression
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of causation to engage s.7

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that ss.210 (as it applies to prostitution), 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code infringe s.7 by depriving sex workers of security of the person in ways not in accordance with principles of fundamental justice (arbitrariness/overbreadth/gross disproportionality). The word "prostitution" was struck from the definition of "common bawdy-house" in s.197(1) as it applies to s.210; the declaration of invalidity was suspended for one year to allow Parliament to respond. The application judge was entitled to revisit Prostitution Reference on novel s.7 security issues and her findings on social facts attract deference absent palpable and overriding error.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; cross-appeal allowed. Sections 210 (as it relates to prostitution), 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c) declared inconsistent with the Charter. Word "prostitution" struck from definition of "common bawdy-house" in s.197(1) as it applies to s.210. Declaration of invalidity suspended for one year.

Orders

  • Declare ss.210 (as it relates to prostitution), 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and hence void
  • Strike the word "prostitution" from the definition of "common bawdy-house" in s.197(1) of the Criminal Code as it applies to s.210 only