Attorney General V Bedford Case Summary
Style of Cause
Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] 3 SCR 1101, 2013 SCC 72
Facts
Three former or current prostitutes, Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott claimed that three provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C46, infringed their rights under section 2 (b) and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
They argued that the following provisions placed restrictions on prostitutions that jeopardies their safety, health and security:
⋅ section 210 makes it an offence to keep or be in a bawdy‑house
⋅ section 212 (1)(j) prohibits living on the avails of prostitution
⋅ section 213 (1)(c) prohibits communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution
Charter Right in Dispute
s. 2 (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press …show more content…
The court examined the arguments from the Attorney General regarding the insufficient causal connection, the prior standard of measuring causation and the source of harm (it’s a choice to engage in prostitution, rather than law). These arguments from the Attorney General were rejected for several reasons including; prostitution is not a choice for everyone, it is legal, they are not asking for new safety measures but for the Court to strike down the laws that increase the risk of disease, violence and death.
The court had to consider if the principles of fundamental justice’s minimum requirements were meet. They did determine that the laws in question do have a negative impact which enforces limits on security of the person and cannot be justified by section 1 of the Charter. As a result, all three provisions of the Criminal Code had infringed the sex worker’s rights under section 7 of the Charter.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] 3 SCR 1101, 2013 SCC 72
Facts
Three former or current prostitutes, Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott claimed that three provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C46, infringed their rights under section 2 (b) and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
They argued that the following provisions placed restrictions on prostitutions that jeopardies their safety, health and security:
⋅ section 210 makes it an offence to keep or be in a bawdy‑house
⋅ section 212 (1)(j) prohibits living on the avails of prostitution
⋅ section 213 (1)(c) prohibits communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution
Charter Right in Dispute
s. 2 (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press …show more content…
The court examined the arguments from the Attorney General regarding the insufficient causal connection, the prior standard of measuring causation and the source of harm (it’s a choice to engage in prostitution, rather than law). These arguments from the Attorney General were rejected for several reasons including; prostitution is not a choice for everyone, it is legal, they are not asking for new safety measures but for the Court to strike down the laws that increase the risk of disease, violence and death.
The court had to consider if the principles of fundamental justice’s minimum requirements were meet. They did determine that the laws in question do have a negative impact which enforces limits on security of the person and cannot be justified by section 1 of the Charter. As a result, all three provisions of the Criminal Code had infringed the sex worker’s rights under section 7 of the Charter.