Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues (whether a jurisdiction, such as a Provincial Government or municipality, has the powers to legislate on the matter).
The Alberta Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that infringement of freedom of expression was a justifiable limitation as no "clear and convincing" alternative was available for dealing with the nuisance of street prostitution (R. v. Jahelka (1987), 79 A.R.
He also held that it did not infringe the right to be treated fairly when life, liberty and security are affected by governmental action, as guaranteed by section 7 of the Charter.
The reference to the court also included the bawdy house provisions which were held to not infringe the guarantee of freedom of expression provided for by section 2(b) of the Charter.
The justification was set out in three stages: A part of section 198(1)(d) was challenged in 1991, namely that a previous conviction of keeping a disorderly house amounts to proof of the nature of the premises in subsequent proceedings.
[4] On March 26, 2012 the Appeal court came to a decision which upheld the lower court's ruling on bawdy houses, modified the ruling on living on the avails to make exploitation a criminal offence, but reversed the decision on soliciting, holding that the effect on communities justified the limitation.
[9][10] A related challenge was mounted in British Columbia in 2007,[11] but did not proceed due to a procedural motion by the Attorney General of Canada seeking dismissal on the grounds of lack of standing by the litigants.
[16] The Supreme Court made a number of observations regarding the issues involved: "In this case, all three factors, applied purposively and flexibly, favour granting public interest standing to the respondents.
Granting standing will not only serve to enhance the principle of legality with respect to serious issues of direct concern to some of the most marginalized members of society, but it will also promote the economical use of scarce judicial resources"In view of the subsequent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, this application became moot.
In a decision dated 20 December 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the laws in question, ruling that a ban on solicitation and brothels violated prostitutes' rights to safety.
"[17][18][19] In response, Peter MacKay, the Minister of Justice introduced amending legislation, C-36[20] the "Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act" (PCEPA) on June 4, 2014,[21] which received first reading.
[22] In February 2020, an Ontario court judge struck down three parts of the PCEPA as unconstitutional: the prohibitions on advertising, procuring and materially benefiting from someone else's sexual services were violations of the 'freedom of expression' and 'security of the person' as defined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That case reversed an Ontario Court of Appeal decision acquitting a woman convicted of offering sexual services on her own.
No complaints had been received; the acts were in a closed room between consenting adults without physical contact, while expert witnesses suggested this was voyeurism and exhibitionism that caused no harm.
Furthermore, the court ruled that Parliament intended to abolish prostitution as a form of violence against women, and thus the dancing exceeded public acceptability.
The Supreme Court confirmed this in June 1997 holding that sexual contact constitutes prostitution and exceeds community standards.
Mr. Justice Sopinka, 26 June 1997 Participation alone is insufficient under 210 (1), without "some degree of control over the care and management of the premises" (R. v. Corbeil, [1991] 1 S.C.R.
The majority accepted that an accused might be convicted despite the existence of reasonable doubt, for instance, a person may share accommodation with someone without necessarily living on their earnings.