Attorney General of Canada (Attorney General) v. Terri-Jean Bedford et al.

Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch, and Valarie Scott (collectively, the individuals) (plaintiffs), all of whom were involved in prostitution, filed an action against the attorney general of Canada in a Canadian trial court. The individuals claimed that three provisions in Canada’s Criminal Code violated § 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the charter) by depriving prostitutes of their right to security. The challenged provisions included § 210, which criminalized being associated with a bawdy house; § 212(1)(j), which criminalized profiting from another’s prostitution; and § 213(1)(c), which criminalized engaging in or obtaining prostitution in a public place. However, the provisions did not make prostitution itself unlawful. The individuals argued that the challenged provisions deprived prostitutes of their right to security. The individuals claimed that the provisions prevented prostitutes from working at a fixed location, hiring individuals to provide security and medical necessities, and engaging in communication at a public location, all of which helped to ensure safety and protection. The attorney general argued that prostitution was inherently risky and that the challenged provisions did not aggravate the risk. The trial court determined that the challenged laws deprived prostitutes of their right to security, particularly because the laws served as a barrier to engaging in prostitution activities from a fixed location, which was the safest form of prostitution. The matter was appealed to the Canada Supreme Court.