clients. In Vancouver, for example, House” was established to support “Grandma’s street workers in the Downtown Eastside, at about the same time as fears were growing that a serial killer was prowling the streets fears which materialized in the — notorious Robert Pickton. Street prostitutes who the application judge found are — largely the most vulnerable class of prostitutes, and who face an alarming amount of violence (para. 361) were able to bring clients to Grandma’s House. However, — charges were laid under s. 210, and although the charges were eventually stayed — four years after they were laid Grandma’s House was shut down (supplementary — affidavit of Dr. John Lowman, May 6, 2009, J.A.R., vol. 20, at p. 5744). For some prostitutes, particularly those who are destitute, safe houses such as Grandma’s House may be critical. For these people, the ability to work in brothels or hire security, even if those activities were lawful, may be illusory. I conclude, therefore, that the bawdy-house provision negatively impacts the security of the person of prostitutes and engages s. 7 of the Charter. Section 212(1)(j): Living on the Avails of Prostitution Section 212(1)(j) criminalizes living on the avails of prostitution of another person, wholly or in part. targeting parasitic relationships (R. v. [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10), it has a broad reach. As interpreted by the courts, it Downey, makes it a crime for anyone to supply a service to a prostitute, because she is a prostitute (R. (1991), 2 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.); (2001), 54 O.R. v. Grilo R. v. Barrow (3d) 417 (C.A.)). In effect, it prevents a prostitute from hiring bodyguards, drivers
clients. In Vancouver, for example, “Grandma’s House” was established to support street workers in the Downtown Eastside, at about the same time as fears were growing that a serial killer was prowling the streets — fears which materialized in the notorious Robert Pickton. Street prostitutes — who the application judge found are largely the most vulnerable class of prostitutes, and who face an alarming amount of violence (para. 361) — were able to bring clients to Grandma’s House. However, charges were laid under s. 210, and although the charges were eventually stayed — four years after they were laid — Grandma’s House was shut down (supplementary affidavit of Dr. John Lowman, May 6, 2009, J.A.R., vol. 20, at p. 5744). For some prostitutes, particularly those who are destitute, safe houses such as Grandma’s House may be critical. For these people, the ability to work in brothels or hire security, even if those activities were lawful, may be illusory. I conclude, therefore, that the bawdy-house provision negatively impacts the security of the person of prostitutes and engages s. 7 of the Charter. Section 212(1)(j): Living on the Avails of Prostitution Section 212(1)(j) criminalizes living on the avails of prostitution of another person, wholly or in part. targeting parasitic relationships (R. v. Downey, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10), it has a broad reach. As interpreted by the courts, it makes it a crime for anyone to supply a service to a prostitute, because she is a prostitute (R. v. Grilo (1991), 2 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.); R. v. Barrow (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.)). In effect, it prevents a prostitute from hiring bodyguards, drivers
Bedford-en.docx