Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford [2013]

Case Summary

In September 2010, Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court effectively struck down the Criminal Code provisions dealing with living on the avails (proceeds) of prostitution, keeping a common bawdy house (brothel), and communicating for the purposes of prostitution in the case of Bedford v. Attorney-General of Canada. That decision was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal where five judges heard the appeal and decided:

1. The federal government had twelve months to reform the Criminal Code (the “Code”) provision against prostitutes operating out of brothels, massage parlours and other forms of common bawdy houses; which would do nothing to protect the rank and file exploited women, men and children working on the street.

2. The Code provision that prohibits communicating for the purposes of prostitution was upheld; i.e. you can buy and you can sell but you can’t advertise or negotiate a price.

3. And, the section of the Code dealing with living on the avails of prostitution was amended by the court so that it will only apply to those doing so in an exploitive way; which would accommodate the rare few with the capacity to structure a sex-for-sale business with support staff.

The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal was stayed (i.e., the law stays as it is written in the Criminal Code) until the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which was rendered in December 2013. It struck down all three provisions of Canada’s prostitution laws, creating a legal vacuum. The current laws remain in place for one year, during which time the Government of Canada has the option to abandon them or implement new laws.

The EFC was an intervener in the case and responded immediately to the Supreme Court decision.

In February 2014 the Government of Canada began inviting public input on the reform of Canada’s prostitution laws. The online consultation was open until March 17, 2014.

Legal Submissions

• Factum of the Intervener, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, as submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada (May 2013)

• 
  

Court Decisions

• Supreme Court of Canada, Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72

• Ontario Court of Appeal, Bedford v. Canada, 2012 ONCA 186 (CanLII)

• Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Bedford v. Canada, 2010 ONSC 4264 (CanLII)

• 
  

Media Releases

• EFC Urges Government to Act After Supreme Court Decision in Prostitution Case(December 2013)

• EFC to Attend Supreme Court for Prostitution Case Decision (December 2013)

• EFC in Supreme Court: Prostitution and Human Trafficking Linked (June 2013)

• Prostitution Ruling Highlights Need for New Laws (March 2012)

• 
  

Reports

• Out of Business: Prostitution in Canada – Putting an End to Demand (December 2013)

• Selling Ourselves: Prostitution in Canada, Where are we Headed? (April 2010)

Commentary

• The Case Against Legalized Prostitution (June 24, 2013)

• Don't Ignore the Real Issue on Prostitution (June 17, 2013)

• Prostitutes Are Finally Free. Or Are They? (Mar. 28, 2012)

• When It Comes to Dealing With Prostitution and Trafficking, Changing the Culture Is Half the Battle. An Impossible Task? The Swedes Didn’t Think So. (Oct. 19, 2011)

• Canada’s Prostitution Laws: A Third, and Better Option (June 13, 2011)

• Behind the Prostitution Story: A Triumph of Grace (Mar. 25, 2011)

• Ontario Prostitution Ruling (2): What’s That Mean? (Dec. 6, 2010)

• The Ontario Prostitution Ruling: While We’re Waiting (Nov. 29, 2010)

• The Link Between Prostitution Laws and Human Trafficking Rates (April 26, 2010)

• See No Evil? (Feb. 12, 2010)

• Can Prostitution be a Safe, Legal Career Option? (Oct. 13, 2009)