Bedford v. Canada

Bedford v. Canada was a legal challenge to Canada's prostitution laws filed in the Superior Court of Ontario in 2007.^[1][2][3] The applicants, Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, argued that Canada's prostitution laws were unconstitutional.^[4] The Canadian Criminal Code includes a number of provisions outlawing public communication for the purposes of prostitution, operating a bawdy house or living off of the avails of prostitution. However, prostitution itself is legal. The applicants argued that the laws deprive sex workers of their right to security by forcing them to work in secret.^[4]

Contents 1 Applicants 1.1 Terri-Jean Bedford 1.2 Valerie Scott 1.3 Amy Lebovitch 2 Trial 2.1 Decision 2.2 Appeal and stays of effect 3 See also 4 References

Applicants

The three applicants all work or worked in the sex trade^[5] and are members of Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC), an organization which campaigns for the rights of sex workers and the full decriminalization of prostitution.

Terri-Jean Bedford

Terri-Jean Bedford, born 15 October 1959, was formerly a prostitute and now works as a professional dominatrix.^[6][2] She calls herself "Canada's most famous Dominatrix". ^[7] Bedford formerly operated an S&M dungeon in Thornhill, Ontario, called Madame de Sade's House of Erotica, but dubbed the Bondage Bungalow by the press.^[8] In 1994 her business was raided by police and she was charged with operating a bawdy house.^[8] In 1995 the charges were dismissed.^[9] However the Crown appealed^[10] and in 1999 she was convicted.^[6][5] Throughout the Superior Court trial, she delighted reporters by dressing all in leather and always appearing with a black leather riding crop.^[6][11]

Valerie Scott

Valerie Scott, born 9 April 1958, entered the sex trade when she was 24.^[4][2] She worked as a street prostitute and in massage parlours.^[5] Scott became an activist in 1986 when she joined SPOC (known as the Canadian Organization for the Rights of Prostitutes at the time).^[12] As of 2011 she is the executive director of the organization.^[13] Since the verdict, she stated that she intends to study business at the University of Toronto and has already submitted a business plan to run a brothel.^[5]

Amy Lebovitch

Amy Lebovitch, born 24 January 1979, has worked in the sex-trade since she was 18 as a street prostitute, as an escort, and in a fetish house.^[14][4][2] She has also studied criminology and psychology at the University of Ottawa and social work at Ryerson University in Toronto.^[14][2] As of 2011, she continues to work as a prostitute in British Columbia and acts as a spokesperson for SPOC.^[14]

Trial

The trial took place in Toronto over seven days in October 2009.^[15] The applicants were represented by Alan Young, a professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School.^[6][16] Young stated that he brought the challenge forward because the state of the law in Canada made it legal to engage in the act of prostitution, but illegal to be indoors, hire bodyguards or help and to screen clients. One witness, Professor John Lowman of Simon Fraser University, provided evidence that working outside is more dangerous for prostitutes, raising the example of serial-killer Robert Pickton who preyed on streetwalkers.^[17]

The federal and provincial governments argued that prostitution is exploitative and harmful to the community.^[15] The federal government called experts such as Dr. Janice Raymond of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and Dr. Melissa Farley of Prostitution Research and Education.^[18] Witnesses for the Crown argued that indoor prostitution is no less risky than outdoor prostitution and that prostitution in any form is inherently dangerous.^[19] In addition to the Attorney General of Ontario, other parties granted intervenor status in the case included the Catholic Civil Rights League, the Christian Legal Fellowship and REAL Women of Canada.^[6][11] These intervenors filed a joint submission stating that a majority of Canadians hold prostitution to be immoral and that 80% of Canadians belong to religions supporting this view.^[15]

Decision

On September 28, 2010, Justice Susan Himel issued her decision after one year of deliberation.^[13] She struck down Canada's prostitution laws,^[20] specifically sections 210, 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c).^[2] An Angus Reid poll shortly after the decision found 49% of Canadians approved of the decision of Justice Himel, and 34% were opposed, however there was considerable variation by age, gender and province.^[21]

Appeal and stays of effect

Justice Himel originally allowed a stay of 30 days to permit appeal.^[20] Justice Minister Rob Nicholson stated that the Federal Government would appeal the court ruling and seek a stay pending that decision.^[22] The Ontario Government, which had intervenor status in the case, supported the appeal and did not seek any Parliamentary discussion of the state of the prostitution laws in Canada.

On October 15, a further stay effective till November 27 was granted to allow the Justice Department to prepare an appeal, and, on November 22, the Government sought a further stay in the court of appeal, claiming dire consequences if the decision was applied. ^[23]Mr Justice Marc Rosenberg rebuked the Crown for overstating the consequences of allowing the decision to stand.^[24][25]Judgment was reserved, the parties agreeing to extend the stay until judgment was delivered.^[26][27] On December 2, the court granted an extension of the stay until April 2011, on the grounds of preserving the status quo and that the full appeal should have been heard by then.^[28][29][30]

In March 2011, the Government filed its brief and applied for and obtained a further stay till the hearing of the appeal in June 2011.^[13] They also asked for a further 18-month stay should the appeal be unsuccessful. In its brief the Justice Department made a number of arguments in addition to claims of errors in law: prostitution is inherently harmful, Parliament enacted the provisions to discourage this activity, and the impugned provisions met the stated objectives, were not arbitrary or overbroad, and therefore should stand. Furthermore, it challenged the legal standing of two of the three applicants. The claims that the stated harms were due to sex workers flouting the law, and that there was not a duty of protection to sex workers, since they voluntarily entered a dangerous occupation, were the ones picked up by the media. ^{[31][32][33][34][35]}

Seven additional parties, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Prostitutes of Ottawa/Gatineau Work, Educate and Resist (POWER), have obtained intervenor status as amici curiae, however Maggie's, a sex worker organisation ^[36] was denied this on March 16, since they sought to raise new constitutional issues under section 15. They were however invited to join one of the existing groups. ^[37][38]

The appeal was heard by five members of the Court of Appeal for Ontario from 13–16 June 2011.^[39] The panel further extended the stay pending their verdict.^[40]

See also

• Prostitution in Canada
• Prostitution in Canada (Constitutional and case law)

References