The Unconstitutional Nature of the Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex in Canada: R v Anwar & Harvey 2020 ONCJ 103
| Date | 01 June 2020 |
| Author | Zach Leggett |
| Published date | 01 June 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018320925010 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
The Unconstitutional Nature
of the Criminalisation of the
Purchase of Sex in Canada
R v Anwar & Harvey 2020 ONCJ 103
Keywords
Sex work, prostitution, advertising, material benefit, procuring, sexual services
The Applicants, Mr Anwar and Ms Harvey, operated Fantasy Worlds Escorts (FWE) agency in London,
Ontario, Canada. They were charged with the following offences under the Canadian Criminal Code
relating to the commodification of sexual activity: receiving a financial or material benefit from pros-
titution contrary to s 286.2(1), procuring a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration
contrary to s 286.3(1) and knowingly advertising an offer to provide sexual services for consideration
contrary to s 286.4. The pair challenged the charges on the basis that they were in contravention of the
Canadian constitution, specifically the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the laws in question
prevented sex workers from lawfully using third parties to protect them and to prevent them from
forming associations in order to create a system of mutual protection. As the provisions targeted sex
workers and prevented them from accessing things that are natural, expected and encouraged in other
sectors of work, the Applicants argued that the existing prostitution laws denied sex workers, who are in
particular need of protection, the benefits accorded to mainstream labour.
Anwar was the owner of FWE while his common law spouse, Harvey, ran the day-to-day operations
of the business. The business mainly operated in London with two apartments used for the sale of sexual
services, but ‘outcall’ services could be provided at a client’s premises and the agency also made use of
hotels and apartments in Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The pair controlled the advertising
which took place on the FWE website, other websites such as sex work forums and posters were placed
in bus stops throughout the City of London. The FWE website was also used to inform potential clients
of the agency’s terms and conditions, expected conduct and to recruit sex workers to join the agency,
providing salary details, employment benefits and an application form to be completed. The terms and
conditions included a Code of Ethics which set out standards of hygiene, safety and behaviour expected
of clients. The Code also provided the right for an employee to refuse to see a client and the right to end a
session if they felt it was unsafe to continue or were uncomfortable in doing so.
Harvey’s role included acting as an intermediary between clients and escorts. She would negotiate the
price, make payment arrangements and consider client preferences such as requests for a specific escort,
the type of service or other special requests. Harvey also compiled information about clients such as a
brief description, their preferenc es, records of their past behaviour and w hich employees they had
encountered. In her role, Harvey screened clients and had a blacklist of approximately 400 clients who
were either unacceptable in general or unacceptable for particular workers. The list also included the
names of known drug users, prank callers, no-shows and men based in the buildings in which the sexual
services were provided. Anwar handled recruitment with the process being quite open—applicants were
clearly told of the operation of the business, salary details, benefits, commission taken by the agency and
The Journal of Criminal Law
2020, Vol. 84(3) 266–270
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018320925010
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial