Sentences with phrase «avails of prostitution»

Among the charges Mulawka faces is trafficking in persons and living on avails of prostitution.

Muddying the waters further, Canada's «living off the avails of prostitution» provisions have been substantially altered by the reading - in of a proviso requiring the crown to prove «circumstances of exploitation».

Justice Himel of the Ontario Superior Court, in a decision grounded in evidence from Canada and abroad about the extreme harms faced by sex workers, held that the provisions restricting indoor sex work (or «bawdy houses»), living on the avails of prostitution, and communicating in public for the purpose of prostitution were unconstitutional.

As most of us are already aware, tomorrow the SCC will hear arguments in the Bedford case and will ponder the criminality of certain acts related to sex work, namely communicating for the purposes of prostitution, being found in a common bawdy house and living off the avails of prostitution.

Moreover, Justice Susan Himel ruled that the laws that forbid running a bawdy house, communicating for the purpose of prostitution, and living off the avails of prostitution were unconstitutional and are not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice.

Section 212 (1)(j), which prohibited living on the avails of prostitution, prevented anyone, including...

In December 2013, in Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions of the Criminal Code that dealt with keeping a bawdy house (section 210), living off the avails of prostitution (section 212 (1)(j)-RRB-, and communicating in public with respect to a proposed act of prostitution (section 213 (1 (c)-RRB- were unconstitutional.

However, it is a crime to keep a bawdy - house, to live on the avails of prostitution or to communicate in public with respect to a proposed act of prostitution.

Three criminal laws were at issue: the laws preventing bawdy houses or brothels (s. 210), living on the avails of prostitution (s. 212 (1)(j)-RRB- and communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution (s. 213)(1)(c)-RRB-.

Rather, the Court «read in» words of limitation so that the prohibition would apply only to those who live on the avails of prostitution in circumstances of exploitation.

In addition to the bawdy house provision, they challenged provisions of the Code which prohibit living on the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purpose of prostitution in public.

The living on the avails provision, while aimed at pimps, was also overbroad since it «punished everyone who lives on the avails of prostitution without distinguishing between those who exploit prostitutes and those who could increase the safety and security of prostitutes» (such as legitimate drivers, managers, or bodyguards).

The Court of Appeal also agreed with the lower court that the prohibition against living on the avails of prostitution infringes s. 7 of the Charter to the extent that it criminalizes non-exploitative commercial relationships between sex trade workers and other people.

Two lower courts in Ontario struck down two provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting the operation of a common bawdy house and a prohibition against living on the avails of prostitution on the basis that the provisions violated s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides that the state can not deny a person's right to life, liberty or security of the person except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

On April 25, 2012, the Federal Government announced that they will appeal the March 26, 2012, Ontario Court of Appeal decision striking down Canada's prostitution laws, specifically, Criminal Code provisions prohibiting «keeping or using a common bawdy house» (section 210) and the «living off the avails of prostitution» provision (section 212 (1)(j)-RRB- as unconstitutional to the Supreme Court of Canada.

He asked the court to invalidate Criminal Code provisions that made it illegal to run a bawdy house, communicate for the purposes of prostitution, and live off the avails of prostitution.

These provisions made it illegal to run a bawdy house, communicate for the purposes of prostitution, and live off the avails of prostitution.

However the court found three key Criminal Code prohibitions — on brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public for the purposes of buying and selling sex — are unconstitutionally broad and breach the Charter rights of vulnerable and marginalized women practising the world's oldest profession.

A Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice agreed with these arguments and found the prohibitions on communication for the purpose of prostitution, living off the avails of prostitution, and keeping a common bawdy house, to be unconstitutional.

[59] Here, the applicants argue that the prohibitions on bawdy - houses, living on the avails of prostitution, and communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution, heighten the risks they face in prostitution — itself a legal activity...

All other forms of prostitution related activities — like operating a brothel or living off the avails of prostitution — remain illegal.

The respondent, during her testimony, remarked that she expressed the view to the officers of the Taxation Division that it was incongruous that the government should seek to live on the avails of prostitution.

The majority of the court agreed with Justice Himel's lower court decision that s. 210 common bawdy house and s. 212 (1)(j) living off the avails of prostitution are unconstitutional as being contrary to the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter.

(iii) subsection 212 (2.1)(aggravated offence in relation to living on the avails of prostitution of person under 18 years), and

The British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday October 12, 2010, that a former sex worker and the Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United against Violence Society (a lobby group representing sex trade workers), can challenge the law provisions dealing with prostitution (operating a bawdy house, communicating in public to sell sex or living off the avails of prostitution), alleging that they violate ss.

Instead, Justice Susan Himel will have to decide whether the three sections of the Criminal Code (which prohibit communicating for the purposes of prostitution, keeping a common bawdy house, and living off the avails of prostitution) violate the s. 7 guarantee of security of the person and / or infringe on freedom of expression.