Citation: Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] 3 SCR 1101, 2013 SCC 72
Canada V. Bedford
[2013] Supreme Court of Canada

Procedural history:

• Applied to the Ontario superior court of justice [date]
• Ontario superior court of justice found provisions to section 7 unconstitutional and granted application [date]
• Granted provisions were brought to the Ontario court of appeal December 2nd 2010
• Court of appeal agreed s.210 and s. 212 was unconstitutional, however declared s.213 unjustifiable violation of s.7
• Both sides appeal The Court of Appeal decision to the supreme court
• Supreme Court of Canada case hearing December 20th 2013

Parties:

Appellant: Bedford

Respondents: Canada (The attorney general of Canada)

Interveners: …show more content…
All 9 judges (McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner JJ.) were present for the hearing and unanimously declared that the three sections (s.210, s.212, s.213) were unconstitutional and a violation of section 7 of the charter.
Facts:
Former/Current sex workers Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott applied to the Ontario court of justice seeking provisions to the criminal code that infringe section 7 of the charter, s. 210, s. 212, s. 213, as they saw them as unconstitutional and a violation of the charter. B, L and S, argued that these laws restricted the practice of prostitution and exacerbated the danger/harm for sex workers. - It was said that Section 210 [prohibiting, operating or being found in a ‘bawdy’ house] was unconstitutional due to the fact that it prevented sex workers from working in a safe environment and/or taking other safety measures within a house.
- It was said that Section 212 [living off the avails of a prostitute] was to protect sex workers against the exploitation of relationships, also known as ‘pimping’ but was unconstitutional due to it capturing numbers of non-exploitive …show more content…
The restriction of safe environment for sex workers puts them at risk and thus violates their section 7 rights, deeming it unconstitutional.
- Is the ‘living off the avails’ law constitutional?
The law was deemed too overbroad by the court and thus unconstitutional
- Is the ‘communicating in public for the purpose of prostitution’ law constitutional?
The law had consequences towards sex workers that outweighed the benefits for the public thus deeming it unconstitutional.
- How should the courts determine which laws cause violation of section 7?
The court looked at each law determining which ones violated section 7 [rights to life, liberty and security of persons], as well as the principles of fundamental justice

Application to the case
Is there a real or imminent deprivation of life?
- In the case of Bedford, the deprivation of life would be applied when sex workers were put in dangerous situations due to the restrictions placed by the law, resulting in a worker’s life being put on the line. This can be related to the Reyes case as it asks whether or not a child is being deprived of a proper life if allowed to grow up in a prison.
Is a person being restricted of their