34788 in the Supreme Court of Canada

File Number: 34788

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

BETWEEN:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant (Respondent on Cross-Appeal) - and -

TERRI JEAN BEDFORD, AMY LEBOVITCH and VALERIE SCOTT Respondents (Appellants on Cross-Appeal)

- and -

PIVOT LEGAL SOCIETY, DOWNTOWN EASTSIDE SEX WORKERS UNITED AGAINST VIOLENCE and PACE SOCIETY, THE SECRETARIAT OF THE JOINT UNITED NATIONS PROGRAMME ON HIV/AIDS, THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, THE EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP OF CANADA, THE CANADIAN HIV/AIDS LEGAL NETWORK, BRITISH COLUMBIA CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE IN HIV/AIDS and HIV & AIDS LEGAL CLINIC ONTARIO , THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CENTRES, NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETIES, ACTION ONTARIENNE CONTRE LA VIOLENCE FAITE AUX FEMMES, CONCERTATION DES LUTTES CONTRE L'EXPLOITATION SEXUELLE, REGROUPEMENT QUÉBÉCOIS DES CENTRES D'AIDE ET DE LUTTE CONTRE LES AGRESSIONS À CARACTÈRE SEXUEL and VANCOUVER RAPE RELIEF SOCIETY, CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP, CATHOLIC CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE and REAL WOMEN OF CANADA, THE DAVID ASPER CENTRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THE INSTITUT SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR, THE AWCEP ASIAN WOMEN FOR EQUALITY SOCIETY, OPERATING AS ASIAN WOMEN COALITION ENDING PROSTITUTION and THE ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICES OF TORONTO INC.

Interveners

AND BETWEEN:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Appellant (Respondent on Cross-Appeal) - and -

TERRI JEAN BEDFORD, AMY LEBOVITCH and VALERIE SCOTT Respondents (Appellants on Cross-Appeal)

- and -

Interveners

______

FACTUM OF THE INTERVENERS, CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP, CATHOLIC CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE and REAL WOMEN OF CANADA

______

BENNETT JONES LLP BENNETT JONES LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place World Exchange Plaza P.O. Box 130 1900 – 45 O’Connor Street Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M4X 1A4 K1P 1A4

Robert W. Staley Sheridan Scott Ranjan K. Agarwal Amanda McLachlan

Telephone: (416) 863-1200 Telephone: (613) 683-2300 Facsimile: (416) 863-1216 Facsimile: (613) 683-2323 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Lawyers for the interveners Agent to the interveners

ORIGINAL TO: THE REGISTRAR Supreme Court of Canada

COPIES TO:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Ontario Regional Office Bank of Canada Building - East Tower The Exchange Tower 234 Wellington Street, Room 1212 130 King Street West Ottawa, Ontario Suite 3400 K1A 0H8 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6

Michael H. Morris Christopher M. Rupar

Telephone: (416) 973-9704 Telephone: (613) 941-2351 Facsimile: (416) 952-4518 Facsimile: (416) 952-4518 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Appellant/Respondent on Agents for the Appellant/Respondent on Cross-Appeal, Attorney General of Canada Cross-Appeal, Attorney General of Canada

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY BURKE-ROBERTSON GENERAL 10th Floor 441 MacLaren Street 720 Bay Street Suite 200 Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M5G 2K1 K2P 2H3

Jamie Klukach Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Christine E. Bartlett-Hughes Megan Stephens

Telephone: (416) 326-4639 Telephone: (613) 236-9665 Facsimile: (416) 326-4656 Facsimile: (613) 235-4430 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Appellant/Respondent on Agents for the Appellant/Respondent on Cross-Appeal, Attorney General of Ontario Cross-Appeal, Attorney General of Ontario

ALAN N. YOUNG SACK GOLDBLATT MITCHELL LLP Barrister & Solicitor 500 - 30 Metcalfe Street Osgoode Hall Law School Ottawa, Ontario 4700 Keele Street, Room 428 K1P 5L4 Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3 Fiona Campbell

Telephone: (416) 736-5595 Telephone: (613) 235-5327 Ext: 2451 Facsimile: (416) 736-5736 Facsimile: (613) 235-3041 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Respondent/Appellant on Agents for the Respondent/Appellant on Cross-Appeal, Terri Jean Bedford Cross-Appeal, Terri Jean Bedford

MARZEL LAW SACK GOLDBLATT MITCHELL LLP 265 Rimrock Road, Suite 200 500 - 30 Metcalfe Street Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M3J 3C6 K1P 5L4

Yaron Marzel Fiona Campbell Stacey Nichols

Telephone: (416) 485-5800 Telephone: (613) 235-5327 Ext: 2451 Facsimile: (416) 485-1610 Facsimile: (613) 235-3041 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Respondent/Appellant on Agents for the Respondent/Appellant on Cross-Appeal, Amy Lebovitvh Cross-Appeal, Amy Lebovitvh

SACK GOLDBLATT MITCHELL LLP SACK GOLDBLATT MITCHELL LLP 1100- 20 Dundas St. W. 500 - 30 Metcalfe Street Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M5G 2G8 K1P 5L4

Marlys Edwardh Fiona Campbell Daniel Sheppard

Telephone: (416) 979-4380 Telephone: (613) 235-5327 Ext: 2451 Facsimile: (416) 979-4430 Facsimile: (613) 235-3041 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Respondent/Appellant on Agents for the Respondent/Appellant on Cross-Appeal, Valerie Scott Cross-Appeal, Valerie Scott

PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC NOËL & ASSOCIÉS 1200, Route de l'Église, 2ème étage 111, rue Champlain Québec, Quebec Gatineau, Quebec G1V 4M1 J8X 3R1

Sylvain Leboeuf Pierre Landry Julie Dassylva

Telephone: (418) 643-1477 Ext: 21010 Telephone: (819) 771-7393 Facsimile: (418) 644-7030 Facsimile: (819) 771-5397 E-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Intervener, Attorney General Agents for the Intervener, Attorney General of Quebec of Quebec

PIVOT LEGAL LLP MCMILLAN LLP 121 Heatley Avenue 50 O'Connor Street Vancouver, BC V6A 3E9 Suite 300 Ottawa, ON K1P 6L2

Katrina Pacey Jeffrey Beedell Anne Glaude Jonathan O'Hara

Telephone: (604) 255-9700 Ext: 103 Telephone: (613) 232-7171 Ext: 122 Facsimile: (604) 255-1552 Facsimile: (613) 231-3191 E-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: Jonathan.O'[email protected]

Lawyers for the Interveners, Pivot Legal Agents for the Interveners, Pivot Legal Society, Downtown Eastside Sex Workers Society, Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence and PACE Society United Against Violence and PACE Society

MCCARTHY TETRAULT LLP OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP Pacific Centre 340 Albert Street P.O. Box 10424 Suite 1300 Suite 1900 777 Dunsmuir Street Ottawa, Ontario Vancouver, BC V7Y 1K2 K1R 7Y6

Michael Feder Patricia J. Wilson Tammy Shoranick

Telephone: (604) 643-5986 Telephone: (613) 787-1009 Facsimile: (604) 622-5614 Facsimile: (613) 235-2867 Email: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Intervener, Secretariat of Agents for the Intervener, Secretariat of the Joint United Nations Programme on the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS HIV/AIDS

HUNTER LITIGATION CHAMBERS MICHAEL J. SOBKIN Suite 2100 – 1040 West Georgia Street 90 blvd. de Lucerne Vancouver, British Columbia Unit #2 V6E 4H1 Gatineau, QC J9H 7K8

Brent Olthuis Megan Vis-Dunbar

Telephone: (604) 891-2400 Telephone: (819) 778-7794 Facsimile: (604) 647-4554 Facsimile: (819) 778-1740 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Intervener, British Columbia Agent for the Intervener, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association Civil Liberties Association

EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP OF SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP CANADA 130 Albert Street 397 Gladstone Avenue Suite 1810 Suite 100 Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4 Ottawa, ON K2P 0Y9

Georgialee A. Lang Marie-France Major Donald Hutchison Eugene Meehan, Q.C.

Telephone: (613) 233-9868 Telephone: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 101 Facsimile: (613) 233-0301 Facsimile: (613) 695-8580 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Intervener, Evangelical Agents for the Intervener, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Fellowship of Canada

COOPER & SANDLER SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP 1900-439 University Avenue 397 Gladstone Avenue Toronto, ON M5G 1Y8 Suite 100 Ottawa, ON K2P 0Y9

Jonathan A. Shime Marie-France Major Megan Schwartzentruber

Telephone: (416) 585-9191 Telephone: (613) 695-8855 Facsimile: (416) 408-2372 Facsimile: (613) 695-8580 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Interveners, Canadian Agents for the Interveners, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, British Columbia HIV/AIDS Legal Network, British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and HIV Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario

FARADAY LAW BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP 860 Manning Avenue World Exchange Plaza Toronto, Ontario 100 Queen Street, suite 1100 M6G 2W8 Ottawa, ON K1P 1J9

Fay Faraday Nadia Effendi Janine Benedet

Telephone: (416) 389-4399 Telephone: (613) 237-5160 Facsimile: (647) 776-3147 Facsimile: (613) 230-8842 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Intervener, Canadian Agents for the Intervener, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres Association of Sexual Assault Centres

FARADAY LAW BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP 860 Manning Avenue World Exchange Plaza Toronto, Ontario 100 Queen Street, suite 1100 M6G 2W8 Ottawa, ON K1P 1J9

Fay Faraday Nadia Effendi Janine Benedet

Telephone: (416) 389-4399 Telephone: (613) 237-5160 Facsimile: (647) 776-3147 Facsimile: (613) 230-8842 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Interveners, Native Women’s Agents for the Interveners, Native Women’s Association of Canada, Canadian Association of Canada, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Action ontarienne contre la volence faite aux Action ontarienne contre la volence faite aux femmes, Concertation des lutes contre femmes, Concertation des lutes contre l’exploitation sexuelle l’exploitation sexuelle

FARADAY LAW BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP 860 Manning Avenue World Exchange Plaza Toronto, Ontario 100 Queen Street, suite 1100 M6G 2W8 Ottawa, ON K1P 1J9

Fay Faraday Nadia Effendi Janine Benedet

Telephone: (416) 389-4399 Telephone: (613) 237-5160 Facsimile: (647) 776-3147 Facsimile: (613) 230-8842 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Interveners, Regroupment Agents for the Interveners, Regroupment québéquois des centre d’aide et de lute québéquois des centre d’aide et de lute contre les aggressions à caractère sexuel and contre les aggressions à caractère sexuel and Vancouver Rape Relief Society Vancouver Rape Relief Society

ARVAY FINLAY BARRISTERS NORTON ROSE CANADA LLP 1350 -355 Burrard Street 45 O'Connor Street Vancouver, British Columbia Ottawa, ON K1P 1A4 V6C 2G8

Joseph Arvay Martha A. Healey Cheryl Milne

Telephone: (604) 689-4421 Telephone: (613) 780-8638 Facsimile: (604) 687-1941 Facsimile: (613) 230-5459 Email: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Intervener, David Asper Agents for the Intervener, David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights Centre for Constitutional Rights

DESROSIERS, JONCAS, MASSICOTTE DEVEAU, BOURGEOIS, GAGNE, 480, boul. St-Laurent, B-503 HEBERT & ASSOCIES, S.E.N.C.R.L. Montréal, QC H2Y 3Y7 867, Boul , St. Rene Ouest, Gatineau, QC J8T 7X6

Walid Hijazi Frédérick Langlois

Telephone: (514) 397-9284 Telephone: (819) 243-2616 Facsimile: (514) 397-9922 Facsimile: (819) 243-2641 E-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Intervener, Institut Simone Agents for the Intervener, Institut Simone de Beauvoir de Beauvoir

FOY ALLISON LAW GROUP GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON 207-2438 Marine Drive LLP West Vancouver, BC V7V 1L2 160 Elgin Street Suite 2600 Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3

Gwendoline Allison D. Lynne Watt

Telephone: (604) 922-9282 Telephone: (613) 786-8695 Facsimile: (604) 922-9283 Facsimile: (613) 788-3509 E-mail: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Intervener, AWCEP Asian Agents for the Intervener, AWCEP Asian Women for Equality Society, operating as Women for Equality Society, operating as Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution

ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICES OF TORONTO INC. 415 Yonge Street Suite 803 Toronto, ON M5B 2E7

Christa Big Canoe Emily Hill

Telephone: (416) 408-4041 Ext: 225 Facsimile: (416) 408-4268 Email: [email protected]

Lawyers for the Intervener, Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto Inc. - i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ...... 1 PART II: STATEMENT OF POSITION ...... 2 PART III: STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT ...... 2 A. Moral Objectives in Constitutional Law ...... 2 B. The Impugned Laws’ Moral Purpose ...... 3 1. Common Bawdy-House ...... 5 2. Living on the Avails...... 6 C. Principles of Fundamental Justice ...... 8 1. Overbroad ...... 8 2. Grossly Disproportionate ...... 9 PART IV: SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS ...... 10 PART V: ORDER REQUESTED ...... 10

- 1 -

PART I: OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Court of Appeal’s decision in this case directly challenges Parliament’s ability to legislate in areas that reflect a shared belief that certain acts are immoral.

2. Parliament has held the view that prostitution is immoral since Confederation. This moral view is not based on mere prudish sensibilities nor is it legal moralism: it is a common and fundamental social value rooted in other constitutional values such as promoting gender equality, preventing the exploitation of vulnerable persons and protecting human dignity.

3. Prostitution fundamentally demeans the dignity of the prostitute and the client. It perpetuates a fundamentally offensive and abusive gender imbalance and it exposes prostitutes to physical and psychological harm. It degrades the community. In short, Canadians have good reason to abhor prostitution. They have every justification to discourage people from engaging in prostitution, either as prostitutes, johns, pimps and madams or as service-providers.

4. Though the Court of Appeal for Ontario correctly found that morality may be a valid constitutional objective, it erred in finding sections 210 and 212(1)(j) unconstitutional given their moral purpose:

(a) The purpose of the impugned laws is to protect public morality, which is consistent with values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms1, including gender equality, suppressing exploitation and human dignity.

(b) The impugned laws are not grossly disproportionate or overbroad. To the extent the laws criminalize people providing services to prostitutes, there is nothing inconsistent between the laws and the purpose of protecting public morality.

(c) The impugned laws do not infringe the respondents’ security of the person rights. Prostitutes have the choice to stop being prostitutes. If prostitutes choose unsafe conditions or to break the law, it is their choice that exacerbates the risk of harm, not the impugned laws. Even if the impugned measures may be found to infringe an individual’s choice to engage in prostitution, such an infringement is justified. By criminalizing conduct a democratic society at large views to be immoral and

1 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter]. - 2 -

harmful, lawmakers continue to affirm that the protection of core social values should be afforded greater weight than individual moral choices.

5. Christian Legal Fellowship, Catholic Civil Rights League and REAL Women of Canada (the “Interveners”) accept the facts as stated in the Attorney General of Canada’s memorandum of law and argument.

PART II: STATEMENT OF POSITION

6. Sections 210 (bawdy-house) and 212(1)(j) (living on the avails) of the Criminal Code do not infringe section 7 of the Charter. The legislative purpose of these provisions is to target people who profit from vice and otherwise immoral conduct, which is consistent with Charter values. To the extent that these provisions infringe the respondents’ liberty or security of the person rights, such infringement is not grossly disproportionate or overbroad considering the provisions’ moral purpose.

PART III: STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

A. Moral Objectives in Constitutional Law

7. There is no dispute that lawmakers have the right to legislate on the basis of a “fundamental conception of morality” for the purpose of “safeguarding the values” that are “integral to a free and democratic society”.2

8. The “mere fact” that a law is “grounded in morality” does not “automatically render it illegitimate”.3 Morality is a valid criminal law purpose. Moral disapprobation is “itself” sufficient to ground criminal law when “it addresses issues that are integral to society”.4

9. The only limit on this right is that Parliament cannot impose a “standard of public and sexual morality” to reflect certain social conventions.5 In other words, Parliament cannot legislate on the basis of morality alone. But if the legislation is grounded in core social values, morality is a legitimate legislative purpose.

10. This Court has repeatedly held that the association of sexual acts with a commercial

2 R v Butler, [1992] 1 SCR 452 (available on QL) ¶80 [Butler], Book of Authorities of the Appellant Attorney General of Ontario (“AGO BOA”), Tab 33. 3 Ibid ¶81. 4 Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 2010 SCC 61 ¶50 [RAHRA], Interveners’ Book of Authorities (“Interveners’ BOA”), Tab 1. 5 Butler, supra note 2 at 492, Interveners’ BOA, Tab 2. - 3 - transaction is “contrary to a number of values of the Canadian community, such as equality, liberty and human dignity.”6

11. The purpose of the bawdy-house and avails provisions is the strong moral disapproval of brothels and living on someone else’s sex-work. This fundamental conception of morality has the purpose of promoting of gender equality, preventing the exploitation of vulnerable persons and protecting human dignity.

12. This purpose supports the overall legislative intent underlying Canada’s prostitution legislation, which is to discourage or eradicate prostitution itself because it is immoral and harmful to individuals and to society.

13. Parliament does not need hard evidence to support this purpose: it need only have “a reasonable basis to expect that its legislation will address a moral concern of fundamental importance”.7

14. In determining Parliament’s objective, the courts must look at the intention of the elected lawmakers when the impugned provision was enacted or amended. The courts cannot assign purposes or invent new ones.8

B. The Impugned Laws’ Moral Purpose

15. Canada’s prostitution legislation dates to before Confederation. This legislation has prohibited, at various times, virtually all prostitution-related activity, including brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and the status of being a prostitute. These provisions criminalized prostitutes (both inside and outside sex-workers), johns, brothel owners and landlords and anyone else living on the prostitute’s sex-work.9

16. Canada’s earliest prostitution legislation was transplanted to Canada from England.10 These laws criminalized “common bawdy houses” on the basis that brothels tended to endanger public peace and corrupt public morality.11

6 R v Labaye, 2005 3 SCR 728 ¶149, Interveners’ BOA, Tab 3; R v Kouri, [2005] 3 SCR 789 ¶38, Interveners’ BOA, Tab 4. See also R v Mara, [1997] 2 SCR 630 ¶34, AGO BOA, Tab 53. 7 RAHRA, supra note 4, Interveners’ BOA, Tab 1. 8 R v Zundel, [1992] 2 SCR 731 (available on QL) ¶45, AGO BOA, Tab 61. 9 Constance B Backhouse, “Nineteenth-Century Canadian Prostitution Law Reflection of a Discriminatory Society” (1985) 18:36 Social History 387 at 388-396 [Backhouse], Interveners’ BOA, Tab 5. 10 See e.g. An Act for the further introduction of the criminal law of England into this province, 40 Geo III (1800), c 1 (Upper Canada), Interveners’ BOA, Tab 6. - 4 -

17. Prior to Confederation, the provinces passed various legislation dealing with brothels and prostitution.12 Public morality continued to be the legislation’s main purpose. For example, Nova Scotia’s legislation, which prohibited brothels, was expressly entitled Of Offences against Public Morals.13

18. After Confederation, Canada enacted its own criminal laws, which criminalized common bawdy houses, living on the avails of prostitution and being a prostitute.14

19. Following the enactment of the first Criminal Code in 1892, Parliament formally codified protections for women and girls from immoral sexual activity, exploitation and vice.15 Title IV, Offences against Religion, Morals and Public Convenience, contained provisions aimed at protecting against illicit sexual activity and general offences against morality.16

20. The legislation was enacted to reflect a concern by lawmakers and society that women required protection from immoral sexual activity generally and prostitution specifically.17

21. The only activity that has not been criminalized in Canada is the actual sale of sex for money. There is no evidence as to why successive Parliaments have refused to do so. In the Prostitution Reference, Justice Lamer, with reference to “the recent history of prostitution legislation”, concluded that the totality of these prohibitions is “aiming at eradicating the practice” of prostitution.18

22. The Interveners agree with the Attorneys General that the purpose of the impugned provisions should be determined by reference to the objective of the legislative scheme as a whole. The Interveners submit that, based on the purposes of the individual provisions and the scheme as a whole, the overriding objective is to reflect Canadians’ strong moral disapproval of

11 Sir Wm Oldnall Russell Knt, A Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors 5th ed (London: Stevens and Sons, 1877) vol 1, b 2 at 427, Interveners’ BOA, Tab 7; William Hawkins, A Treatise on Pleas of the Crown or A System of the Principal Matters relating to that Subject, digefted under their Proper Heads 3d ed (London: Professional Books) b 1, ch 74 at 196-197, AGO BOA, Tab 18. 12 Backhouse, supra note 9 at 388-389, Interveners’ BOA, Tab 5. 13 RSNS 1864, c 1, Interveners’ BOA, Tab 8. 14 An Act respecting Vagrants, 32 & 33 Vict (1869), c 28, s 1, Affidavit of Lucie Angers, sworn March 20, 2008 (“Angers Affidavit”), Exhibit “3”, Joint Application Record (“JAR”), Volume 64, Tab 127, page 18,771-18,773. 15 Angers Affidavit, page 5, paras. 13-14, JAR, Volume 64, Tab 127, pages 18,744-18,745; Affidavit of Eleanor Maticka- Tyndale, sworn March 29, 2007 (“Maticka-Tyndale Affidavit”), Exhibit “B”, JAR, Volume 12, Tab 45, page 3,137. 16 Angers Affidavit, Exhibit “9”, JAR, Volume 64, Tab 127, pages 18,801-18,806. 17 Angers Affidavit, page 2, ¶5-6, JAR, Volume 64, page 18,741; Angers Affidavit, Exhibit “8”, JAR, Volume 64, Tab 127, page 18,790; Pornography and Prostitution in Canada: Report of the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution (“Fraser Committee Report”), Volume 2, JAR, Volume 71, page 20,921; Debates of the Senate (18 May 1909), JAR, Volume 66, page 19,331. 18 Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 SCR 1123 at 1191 [Prostitution Reference], Book of Authorities of the Respondents (“Respondents’ BOA”), Tab 47. - 5 - prostitution itself, with a view to promoting gender equality, preventing the exploitation of vulnerable persons and protecting human dignity.

1. Common Bawdy-House

23. Section 210(1) makes it an indictable offence to keep a “common bawdy-house”.19 A “common bawdy-house” is defined as “a place that is (a) kept or occupied, or (b) resorted to by one or more persons for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency.”20 Section 210(2) makes it a summary offence to be an inmate of a common bawdy-house, to be found without lawful excuse in a common bawdy-house, or to permit a place to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house.21

24. Between 1886 and 1953, common bawdy-houses were associated with vagrancy and immorality. They were prohibited as a matter of “Public Morals and Public Convenience”.22

25. In Rockert, Justice Estey adopted the view that keeping a brothel was viewed as a public nuisance because it endangered “the public peace” and corrupted men and women by exposing them to “lewdness”. The maintenance of a brothel not only disturbed the neighborhood but it also injured “public morals, health, convenience and safety”.23

26. The Alberta and Yukon courts reflected this view, holding that the purpose of the prohibition on common bawdy-houses is “obviously to check immorality” and to prohibit acts that are “dangerous to the morals of the community”.24

27. Both the Application Judge and the Court of Appeal found that one of the original purposes of the prohibition on common bawdy-houses was to protect public morality.25 But both courts concluded that the provision’s moral purpose was no longer legitimate. They held that the

19 Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 210(1) [Criminal Code]. 20 Ibid, s 197(1). 21 Ibid, s 210(2). 22 An Act respecting Offences against Public Morals and Public Convenience, RSC 1886, c 157, JAR, Volume 65, Tab 139, page 19,061-19,065. 23 R v Rockert, [1978] 2 SCR 704 (available on QL) at 7-8 [Rockert], AGO BOA, Tab 58. 24 Ibid. See also R v Jones (1921), 62 DLR 413 at 414, Respondents’ BOA, Tab 24; R v Mercier (1908), 13 CCC 475 at 485, Respondents’ BOA, Tab 33. 25Bedford v Canada (AG), 2010 ONSC 4264 (“Bedford (Sup Ct)”) ¶239-¶242 Appellants’ Record, Volume II, Tab 3, page 65; Bedford v Canada (AG), 2010 ONCA 814 (“Bedford (OCA)”) ¶189, ¶192, Appellants’ Record, Volume II, Tab 7, page 76. - 6 - purpose of the bawdy-house provision now is “combating neighborhood disruption or disorder and safeguarding public health and safety”.26

28. Neither court explained why this moral purpose was illegimate or did not accord with Charter values. The courts seem to conclude that Parliament was, in banning brothels, legislating “dirt for dirt’s sake” as a reflection of 18th or 19th century social mores. Their conclusion seems to suggest that these social mores are inconsistent either with modern views or with the Charter.

29. This finding is too narrow. It fundamentally recasts the bawdy-house provision’s objective, which violates the principle against shifting purpose. In doing so, the courts have stripped the provision of any grounding in morality.

30. The purpose of the bawdy-house provision is to reflect Parliament’s moral disapproval of brothels because they exploit vulnerable persons and endanger public health and safety. This description of the provision’s purpose properly gives deference to Parliament’s intention. It also reflects a permissible shift in emphasis from “corruption” and “public peace” to exploitation and health and safety.

2. Living on the Avails

31. Section 212(1)(j) provides that “every one…who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person, is guilty of an indictable offence.…”27

32. In 1890, the Criminal Code was amended to add the offence of “procuring defilement of [a] girl”, which is the predecessor to the modern avails provision.28 Although the legislative history is silent on the purpose of the provision, it was placed in the Criminal Code under the heading “Offences Against Public Morals and Convenience”. This part of the Criminal Code also includes prohibitions on gross indecency and incest, two other provisions firmly rooted in morality.29

33. In 1913, this provision was further amended to prohibit human trafficking and exploitation arising from prostitution.30 This amendment made it an indictable offence for any

26 Ibid, Bedford (Sup Ct) ¶242, Appellants’ Record, Volume II, Tab 3, page 65; Ibid, Bedford (OCA) ¶192, Appellants’ Record, Volume II, Tab 7, page 76. 27 Criminal Code, supra note 19, s 212(1)(j). 28 An Act to further amend the Criminal Law, SC 1890, 53 Vict, c 37, s 9, JAR, Volume 65, Tab 140, page 19,068. 29 Ibid, s 5, 8, JAR, Volume 65, Tab 140, page 19,068; R v Schmidt, [1948] OR 198 (CA) ¶36, rev’d on other grounds [1948] SCR 333, Interveners’ BOA, Tab 9. - 7 - male person to live “wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution.” In introducing this amendment, the then-Minister of Justice described the legislative purpose underlying this provision as follows:

Section 9 deals with what is generally spoken of as the white slave traffic. The purpose of it is to make, in some respects, more severe and generally more easily enforcible [sic] the provisions of the law imposing punishment upon people who traffic in vice. … They prescribe penalties for the keeping of bawdy houses, for the procuring of women for prostitution, and upon persons who seek to derive profit from the propagation of vice, more particularly by the prostitution of women.31

34. The Minister of Justice’s comments are noteworthy for two reasons. First, the reference to “white slave traffic” is a euphemism for prostitution and human trafficking. In the early 1900s, Europe, Russia and the United States of America enacted treaties or legislation to prohibit the “white slave traffic”, which itself was clearly rooted (as specifically stated in several of the treaties and laws) in a concern about the “procuring of women or girls for immoral purposes.”32

35. Second, Minister Doherty referred on two occasions to punishing those who traffic in “vice”. “Vice” has only one meaning in the English language: “grossly immoral conduct”.33

36. The Court of Appeal concluded that the avails provision is aimed at protecting vulnerable persons from being “coerced, pressured or emotionally manipulated into prostitution”.34 Like the bawdy-house provision, the court’s formulation of the provision’s purpose makes no reference to the legislation’s overriding moral objectives.

37. In fact, the purpose of the living on the avails provision is to reflect Parliament’s moral disapproval of living on someone else’s sex-work, which includes preventing exploitation of vulnerable persons and promoting human dignity. Again, this purpose both accurately reflects Parliament’s intent and appropriately shifts the emphasis of the purpose from “procuring” to exploitation.

30 An Act to amend the Criminal Code, SC 1913, 2-3 Geo V, c 13, s 9, JAR, Volume 66, Tab 144, pages 19,346-19,347. 31 Debates of the House of Commons (20 May 1913 to 6 June 1913), JAR, Volume 66, Tab 144A, page 19,359. 32 International Agreement for the Suppression of the “White Slave Traffic”, 18 May 1904, 1 LNTS 84, art 1, Interveners’ BOA, Tab 10; White-Slave Traffic Act, ch 395, 36 Stat 825 (1910), Interveners’ BOA, Tab 11; International Convention for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic, 4 May 1910 as amended by Protocol Amending the International Agreement for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic, and Amending the International Convention for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic, 4 May 1949, 98 UNTS 102, Interveners’ BOA, Tab 12. 33 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 9th ed, sub verbo “vice”, Interveners’ BOA, Tab 13. 34 Bedford (OCA), supra note 25 ¶ 238, Appellants’ Record, Volume II, Tab 7, page 97. - 8 -

C. Principles of Fundamental Justice

38. Any infringement by the impugned provisions on the respondents’ liberty or security of the person is justified given the laws’ moral objectives.

1. Overbroad

39. The doctrine of overbreadth requires that a law be no broader than necessary to accomplish its purpose.35

40. The Court of Appeal erred in finding that the bawdy-house and avails provisions are overbroad. In its view, the laws create blanket prohibitions that are not connected to the legislation’s purposes. So, for example, the court found that a single person operating out of her own home is “unlikely to cause most of the public health or safety problems to which the legislation is directed” and, as such, the bawdy-house provision is overbroad in that it captures both large institutions and single prostitutes. Similarly, a prostitute’s driver, bodyguard, accountant or receptionist may all be liable under the avails provision even though none of them are exploiting the prostitute, making the avails provision overbroad.

41. If the purpose of the provisions is, more accurately, described as moral disapproval of brothels and living on someone else’s sex-work and viewed as part of a broader regulatory framework aimed at discouraging or eradicating prostitution, the “blanket prohibition” on all bawdy-houses and living on the avails is constitutionally acceptable.

42. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that a “blanket prohibition” may not be overbroad if the legislation’s purpose is the eradication of prostitution.36

43. The same holds true if the legislation’s purpose is to reflect society’s moral disapproval. If keeping a common bawdy-house is immoral or socially wrong, it should not matter whether the brothel is a large institution or a single prostitute. If having an economic stake in a prostitute’s earnings is immoral or socially wrong, it should not matter whether the person is a parasite or a benign service-provider.

35R v Heywood, [1994] 3 SCR 761 ¶49, AGO BOA, Tab 44. 36Bedford (OCA), supra note 25 ¶200, Appellants’ Record, Volume II, Tab 7, pages 82-83. - 9 -

2. Grossly Disproportionate

44. A law is only grossly disproportionate if the infringement on a person's liberty or security of the person so outweighs its legislative objective that the law is “abhorrent” to Canadians.37

45. In this case, the Court of Appeal found that the legislative objectives of the bawdy-house and avails provisions were sufficiently important that “the impact on prostitutes would have to be extreme to warrant a finding of gross disproportionality.”38 The Interveners submit that moral disapproval, which includes disapproval of the exploitation of others, is equally important to also require an “extreme” impact.

46. There is no dispute that the evidence of violence to prostitutes is shocking and would be so to most Canadians. But that is not the test.

47. The court must evaluate the legislation’s effects by examining the extent to which the legislation creates or contributes to the infringement of the claimant’s rights. Prostitutes have four choices: first, they do not have to be prostitutes at all;39 second, they can practice prostitution in a manner that is allegedly safer for the prostitute (i.e., working alone indoors with regular customers and rarely advertising)40; third, they can practice prostitution in a manner that involves risky activities; and fourth, they can break the law.41

48. The first of the four choices avoids the alleged harm altogether.42 The second of the four choices is allegedly a safer alternative (though there are harms to the community and society as a whole). Only the third and fourth choices engage section 7, but there was no evidence whatsoever that the impugned laws force prostitutes to make either choice. At its absolute

37 R v Malmo-Levine, [2003] 3 SCR 571 ¶159, Interveners’ BOA, Tab 14. 38 Bedford (OCA), supra note 25 ¶ 206, Appellants’ Record, Volume II, Tab 7, page 85. 39 As the Supreme Court held in the Prostitution Reference, section 7 does not include a right to exercise any chosen profession, including prostitution. See Prostitution Reference, supra note 18 at , per Lamer J, Book of Authorities of the Appellant, the Attorney General of Canada (“AGC BOA”), Tab 55. 40 Maticka-Tyndale Affidavit, ¶ 5-7, JAR, Volume 12, Tab 45, page 3093. The Application Judge made a finding that “[w]orking independently from a fixed location (in call) appears to be the safest way for a prostitute to work in Canada” Bedford (Supt Ct), supra note 25 ¶300, Appellants’ Record, Volume II, Tab 3, page 84. 41 If the respondents were arguing, for example, that they really had no choice but to engage in the profession, it was their onus to prove that with evidence. See Victoria (City) v Adams, 2009 BCCA 563 ¶73, Interveners’ BOA, Tab 15. 42 The Attorney General of Canada has filed a number of affidavits from former prostitutes that made the decision to leave prostitution. See generally Affidavit of Natasha Falle, sworn April 7, 2008, Appellants’ Record, Volume IV, Tab 39, page 9448; Affidavit of D.S. sworn April 9, 2008, Appellants’ Record, Volume V, Tab 42, page 9634; Affidavit of Dawn Hodgins sworn April 7, 2008, Appellants’ Record, Volume V, Tab 43, page 9658; Affidavit of T.D., sworn April 7, 2008, Appellants’ Record, Volume V, Tab 44, page 9678; Affidavit of J.S., sworn April 4, 2008, Appellants’ Record, Volume V, Tab 45, page 9689, Affidavit of H.C., sworn April 7, 2008, Appellants’ Record, Volume V, Tab 46, page 9708; Affidavit of L.B., sworn March 26, 2008, Appellants’ Record, Volume V, Tab 47, page 9719; Affidavit of K.C., sworn March 19, 2008, Appellants’ Record, Volume V, Tab 48, page 9727; Affidavit of P.M., sworn March 19, 2008, Appellants’ Record, Volume V, Tab 49, page 9742. - 10 - highest, the only effect of the impugned laws (beyond imprisonment for the communications and bawdy-house offences) is that prostitutes must choose between four courses of action, one of which is entirely risk-free (not being a prostitute), and another of which is apparently safer (working alone indoors with regular customers and rarely advertising).

49. It is only where the prostitute chooses to practice prostitution that she is exposed to the type of harm alleged in this case.

PART IV: SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS

50. The Interveners do not seek their costs, and submits that no order for costs should be made against them.

PART V: ORDER REQUESTED

51. “Prostitution is a symptom of the victimization and subordination of women and of their economic disadvantage.”43 It violates our most fundamental values: gender equality, the suppression of exploitation and human dignity. For decades, Canadian lawmakers have sought to eradicate prostitution not only because of its harms but because it is morally wrong. The Court of Appeal’s decision in this case incorrectly strips that history and that moral context from the impugned provisions, leading to the absurd result that brothels and pimping may be legalized notwithstanding our common disapprobation of prostitution itself.

52. The Interveners respectfully request an order granting these appeals. The Interveners request permission to present oral argument at the hearing of this appeal.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of May 2013.

______BENNETT JONES LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place P.O. Box 130 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1A4

Lawyers for the Interveners

43Prostitution Reference, supra note 18 ¶96, AGO BOA, Tab 63 - 11 -

PART VI – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Authorities Cited at:

R v Butler, [1992] 1 SCR 452 7, 9

Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 2010 SCC 61 8, 13

R v Labaye, 2005 3 SCR 728 10

R v Kouri, [2005] 3 SCR 789 10

R v Mara, [1997] 2 SCR 630 10

R v Zundel, [1992] 2 SCR 731 14

Constance B Backhouse, “Nineteenth-Century Canadian Prostitution Law 15 Reflection of a Discriminatory Society” (1985) 18:36 Social History 387

An Act for the further introduction of the criminal law of England into this 16 province, 40 GEO III (1800), c 1 (Upper Canada)

Sir Wm Oldnall Russell KNT, A Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors 5th 16 ed (London: Stevens and Sons, 1877) vol 1, b2

William Hawkins, A Treatise on Pleas of the Crown or A System of the 16 Principal Matters relating to that Subject, digefted under their Proper Heads 3d ed (London: Professional Books) v 1, ch 74

Of Offences against Public Morals, RSNS 1864, c 1 17

Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 SCR 21, 47, 51 1123

R v Rockert, [1978] 2 SCR 704 25, 26

R v Jones (1921), 62 DLR 413 26

R v Mercier (1908), 13 CCC 475 26

R v Schmidt, [1948] OR 198 (CA) 32

International Agreement for the Suppression of the “White Slave Traffic”, 18 34 May 1904, 1 LNTS 84, art 1

White-Slave Traffic Act, ch 395, 36 Stat 825 (1910) 34 - 12 -

International Convention for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic, 4 34 May 1910 as amended by Protocol Amending the International Agreement for the Suppression of White Slave Traffic, and Amending the International Convention for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic, 4 May 1949, 98 UNTS 102

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 9th ed, sub verdo “vice” 35

R v Heywood, [1994] 3 SCR 761 39

R v Malmo-Levine, [2003] 3 SCR 571 44

Victoria (City) v Adams, 2009 BCCA 563 47 - 13 -

PART VII – STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

1) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 1, 7, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11

2) Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s. 210, 212(1)(j)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, art. s 1, 7, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, 1, 2 et 7, partie I de la Loi Constitutionelle being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 de 1982, constituent l’annexe B de la Loi (UK), 1982, c 11 de 1982 sur le Canada (R.-U.), 1982 c 11

Rights and Freedoms in Canada Droits et libertés au Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and 1. La Charte canadienne des droits et Freedoms guarantees the rights and libertés garantit les droits et libertés qui freedoms set out in it subject only to y sont énoncés. Ils ne peuvent être such reasonable limits prescribed by restreints que par une règle de droit, law as can be demonstrably justified in dans des limites qui soient raisonnables a free and democratic society. et dont la justification puisse se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique. Legal Rights Garanties juridiques

Life, Liberty and Security of the Person Vie, liberté et sécurité

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty 7. Chacun a droit à la vie, à la liberté et à and security of the person and the right la sécurité de sa personne; il ne peut not to be deprived thereof except in être porté atteinte à ce droit qu’en accordance with the principles of conformité avec les principes de justice fundamental justice. fondamentale.

Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 Code criminel, L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-46

Keeping common bawdy-house Tenue d’une maison de débauche

210. (1) Every one who keeps a common 210. (1) Est coupable d’un acte criminel et bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de and liable to imprisonment for a term not deux ans quiconque tient une maison de exceeding two years. débauche.

Landlord, inmate, etc. Propriétaire, habitant, etc.

(2) Every one who (2) Est coupable d’une infraction punissable sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure - 14 -

(a) is an inmate of a common bawdy-house, sommaire quiconque, selon le cas :

(b) is found, without lawful excuse, in a (a) habite une maison de débauche; common bawdy-house, or (b) est trouvé, sans excuse légitime, dans une (c) as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, maison de débauche; agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any (c) en qualité de propriétaire, locateur, part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of occupant, locataire, agent ou ayant autrement a common bawdy-house, la charge ou le contrôle d’un local, permet sciemment que ce local ou une partie du local is guilty of an offence punishable on summary soit loué ou employé aux fins de maison de conviction. débauche.

Procuring Proxénétisme 212. (1) Every one who 212. (1) Est coupable d’un acte criminel et (j) lives wholly or in part on the passible d’un emprisonnement maximal avails of prostitution of another de dix ans quiconque, selon le cas : person, (j) vit entièrement ou en partie des is guilty of an indictable offence and produits de la prostitution d’une liable to imprisonment for a term not autre personne. exceeding ten years.