This story teaches us: if you think a law is bad, you might be right, so go ahead and challenge it! There’s nothing too daunting about it.
In 2009, three prostitutes brought a lawsuit to court against the Canadian government. Each of them felt that a particular law in the Criminal Code was “not good,” amounting to three laws that “sounded wrong.” As this case involved the Criminal Code, the government was represented by the Attorney General, leading to the landmark case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford [2013].
The story actually dates back to six years earlier. In 2003, Canada’s sole compendium of criminal laws, the Criminal Code, was updated. Among the updates, three provisions were as follows:
- s.210 makes it an offence to keep or be in a bawdy-house
- s.212(1)(j) prohibits living on the avails of prostitution
- s.213(1)(c) prohibits communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution
The three plaintiffs, though retired from prostitution, were actually social activists fighting for their peers’ rights. The youngest, Amy, was an alumnus of the University of Ottawa with a background in Criminology and Psychology. They filed the lawsuit for the following reasons:
Terri-Jean Bedford, one of the trio, argued that the 1982 Constitution Section 7 provided that everyone’s right to life, liberty, and security cannot be deprived. However, the new Criminal Code forbade landlords from renting to them. Without landlords willing to rent, they would have to visit clients’ homes, significantly increasing the risk to their safety. In other words, the Criminal Code was unconstitutional.
Amy Lebovitch said: Formerly, when we went to clients’ places, a strong man would drive and guard us. He would wait outside, ready to rush in if the client turned out to be a psychopath. Of course, we had to pay him. But the new law criminalized profiting from this industry, making it illegal for the man to work as our bodyguard. Without protection, our life and safety were directly threatened, rendering the new law unconstitutional.
Valerie Scott was more straightforward: The new law made it illegal to even talk to people on the street, which was overly broad and too intrusive. Did it mean I no longer had the right to chat with someone? Unconstitutional!
The case started in the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto, moved to the Ontario Court of Appeal, and finally escalated to the Federal Supreme Court (SCC), consisting of nine judges.
The nine judges unanimously ruled: all three criminal statutes were unconstitutional and must be repealed as soon as possible.
With the Constitution on their side, the three women won.
