PDF《TECHNICAL PAPER》

2 prevented people engaged in a risky ― but legal ― activity from taking steps to protect themselves from the risks .3 The Court went on to find that the legislative objectives of the bawdy house and communicating offences, which were primarily aimed at addressing public nuisance and community harms associated with prostitution, were far outweighed by the negative impacts of these offences on prostitutes'

safety and security. The Court also concluded that the living on the avails offence went further than it needed to in order to address its legislative objective of preventing the exploitation of prostitutes and was, therefore, overbroad. The offences were therefore contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. More specifically, the Court found: ? The bawdy house offence (section 210) was grossly disproportionate in its serious impact on prostitutes'

safety, since it prohibited moving indoors as a basic safety precaution. The heightened risks for prostitutes were not outweighed by the provision'

s objective, which the Court characterized as nuisance-related, namely to combat neighborhood disruption or disorder and to safeguard public health and safety .4 ? The living on the avails offence (paragraph 212(1)(j)) was overbroad in scope relative to its objective, which is to target pimps and the parasitic, exploitative conduct in which they engage , because it punished everyone who lives on the avails of prostitution without distinguishing between those who exploit prostitutes and those who could increase their safety and security (e.g., bodyguards, managers, or drivers) or provide other legitimate business services to prostitutes (e.g., accountants and receptionists).5 ? The communicating offence (paragraph 213(1)(c)) was grossly disproportionate in its impact on prostitutes'

safety relative to its objective, which the Supreme Court said was to take prostitution off the streets and out of public view in order to prevent the nuisance that street prostitution can cause. The provision'

s negative impact on the lives and safety of street prostitutes (e.g., by depriving them of an ability to screen customers before getting into their car) was a grossly disproportionate response to the nuisances caused by street prostitution.6 Throughout its analysis, the Court emphasized that the offences were directed at addressing the public nuisances and community health and safety issues caused by street prostitution and brothels, as well as the parasitic exploitation of prostitutes by pimps. The Court specifically found that the prohibitions were not directed at deterring prostitution more generally.7 Finally, the Court said that the Government had not presented evidence to justify the sectio........