As in the discussion of the bawdy-house provision, the Court seems to assume that even if the prohibition went some way toward achieving its purpose, the resulting abatement of nuisance would not justify the dangers: "If screening could have prevented one woman from jumping into Robert Pickton's car, the severity of the harmful effects is established.
Thus, the constitutionality of the offence of keeping a common bawdy-house for the purpose of the practice of acts of indecency is still a live issue, though perhaps not a practically important one.
The majority rejected the Attorney General of Ontario's submission that the goal of the bawdy-house provisions was to "discourag[e], and even eradicate] prostitution," (48) finding instead that the provision's objective was "safeguarding the public peace and protecting against the corruption of morals.
Turning to the principles of fundamental justice, the majority concluded that the bawdy-house provisions were not arbitrary because there was "some" connection between the provisions and the law's objective.
The bawdy-house provisions prevent prostitutes from taking the basic safety precaution of moving indoors to locations under their control, which the application judge held is the safest way to sell sex.
The Attorney General of Canada opposed the application on two grounds: (1) the Supreme Court's decision in the Prostitution Reference, coupled with the doctrine of stare decisis, prevented the application judge from reconsidering the constitutionality of the bawdy-house and communication provisions, which were both upheld on reference; (117) and (2) the applicants failed to meet their evidentiary burden of proving a violation of their section 7 rights.
Although the bawdy-house provision was not arbitrary in itself, it had the effect of being arbitrary when taken together with the other provisions.
7 analysis, Wilson J found that while the bawdy-house provision could be considered consistent with s.
She found that the bawdy-house provision was aimed at "combating neighbourhood disruption and disorder and safeguarding public health and safety".
c) as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house,
With respect to the bawdy-house provisions, Justice Himel stated that morality was one of the original objectives, but that the provisions were also intended to address common or public nuisance concerns, such as health, safety and neighbourhood disruption.
As well, "Everyone who is an inmate of a common bawdy-house
, is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house
, or as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdyhouse, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.