One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: The Court of Appeal for Ontario Clarifies Canada's Sex Work Laws but Ultimately Delivers a Blow in Attempts to Challenge the Constitutional Validity of Canada's ‘end Demand’ Model
| Author | Zach Leggett |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00220183221118408 |
| Published date | 01 October 2022 |
| Date | 01 October 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back:
The Court of Appeal for Ontario
Clarifies Canada’s Sex Work Laws
but Ultimately Delivers a Blow in
Attempts to Challenge the
Constitutional Validity of Canada’s
‘end Demand’Model
RvNS, 2022 ONCA 160
Keywords
Freedom of security, prostitution, sex work, end demand, human rights
NS was charged with six offences relating to prostitution contrary to sections 279.01(1) (trafficking),
279.02(1) (receiving a material benefit from trafficking), 286.1(1) (obtaining sexual services for consid-
eration), 286.2(1) (receiving a material benefit from sexual services) and 286.4 (advertising sexual ser-
vices) of the Canadian Criminal Code. The offences that took place between 12 May 2017 and 31
October 2017 and NS was also charged with an offence under s. 286.3(1) (procuring a person to offer
or provide sexual services for consideration) for an infraction on 11 May 2017. In 2021, he brought a
successful challenge against provisions 286.2, 286.3 and 286.4, which were enacted by the Protection
of Communities and Exploited Persons Act 2014 (PCEPA). This was on the basis that the provisions con-
travened the Charter rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter), section 7
which sets out the following:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except
in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
In an earlier decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (ONSC) had found that the provisions
infringed section 7 of the Charter, and this was not permitted as a limitation which could be ‘demon-
strably justified in a free and democratic society’as per section 1 of the Charter, striking down the
impugned provisions and acquitting the appellant (see RvNS, 2021 ONSC 1628). This case now con-
cerns the appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal against this decision by the Crown.
As a result of a previous Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford,
2013SCC 72; Canada’s laws relating to the keeping of a bawdy house, living off the avails of prostitution
and public communication with respect to a proposed act of prostitution were all found to infringe section
7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the provisions, based around the prevention of
nuisance and safeguarding public health and safety, were disproportionate and overbroad (at [144–147]).
The Canadian government were given a year to reform the law in this area or risk the provisions being
struck downas unconstitutional. The resultant legislationwas PCEPA which repealed thebawdy house pro-
visions and introduced, amongst others, sections 286.1(1), 286.2(1) and 286.3(1) to the Criminal Code.
Case Note
The Journal of Criminal Law
2022, Vol. 86(5) 377–383
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00220183221118408
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial