Laws that prohibit street prostitution and operating a brothel have been declared unconstitutional by an Ontario Superior Court judge.
“I have found that the law as it stands, is currently contributing to the danger faced by prostitutes,” wrote Justice Susan Himel in a 131-page-ruling released Tuesday.
The judge struck down three sections of the Criminal Code that make it illegal to operate a “common bawdy house,” to profit from prostitution-related activities or “communicates” on the street for the purpose of prostitution. The provisions “force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of the person,” said the judge, in finding that the laws breached the Charter of Rights.
The long-awaited ruling was issued nearly a year after a lengthy hearing before Judge Himel, in which three women involved in the sex trade industry were arguing that the laws were unconstitutional. The federal and Ontario governments, as well as three Christian groups all joined to argue that the laws were valid and should stay in place.
Judge Himel stressed that she was determining whether the Criminal Code sections violated the constitutional rights of people involved in the sex trade and if so, whether the laws were a reasonable limit on these rights.
“It is important to state at the outset what this case is not about: the court has not been called upon to decide whether or not there is a constitutional right to sell sex or to decide which policy model regarding prostitution is better. That is the role of Parliament. Rather, it is the court’s task to determine the merits of this particular legal challenge, which is whether certain provisions of the Criminal Code are in violation of the Charter,” she wrote.
The court challenge was only to the three Criminal Code sections and did not include prohibitions against prostitution involving people under the age of 18 or laws aimed at prosecuting pimps.
The judge stayed her ruling from taking effect for 30 days, to give the federal government time to consider the impact of the decision. The federal government could also go to court to seek a longer stay, as it appeals the decision.
