Any thoughts on the recent Ontario Court of Appeals ruling and the Bill C-36 Hearings?

[tmmsmyth]

Some big news items coming out on the PCEPA C-36 Front. I have some of my own thoughts but will share them later.

R. v. N.S., 2022 ONCA 160

www.ontariocourts.ca

 

[Claudia Love]

Controversial Harper-era sex work laws are constitutional, Ontario Court of Appeal rules

The federal law, which in part bans the sex work advertising, has been criticized as making it less safe to be a sex worker. On Thursday, Ontario’s top court rejected that argument.

www.thestar.com

 

[escortsxxx]

Controversial Harper-era sex work laws are constitutional, Ontario Court of Appeal rules

The federal law, which in part bans the sex work advertising, has been criticized as making it less safe to be a sex worker. On Thursday, Ontario’s top court rejected that argument.

www.thestar.com

Bad ruling. The effects of the bill have been muted because of the legal limbo, but any client who accepts screen procedure is up for serious prosecution. The industry will continue in some form but the current state of affairs assuming the law is enforced can not continue. Most changes will either see the industry disapear or make it more dangerous for all who participate.

That being said Japan has had serious laws against all sex work for years, and almost no charges have ever been laid. In fact they have been given government aid during the the pandemic. So it is possible that the law will never be enforced .

 

[shane4]

So what changed? It was ruled unconstitutional than it was ruled constitutional.

 

[mandrill]

Very disappointing.

 

[escortsxxx]

So what changed? It was ruled unconstitutional than it was ruled constitutional.

What has changed was that before the law was ignored by LE, but now they will actually enforce it. Will see how much of the 5 year sentences will be given out.

It is possible that the law will still be ignored since the law has not mass support. However, it has strong vocal support from a small group and for social reasons those against the law are largely silent.

 

[escortsxxx]

Some big news items coming out on the PCEPA C-36 Front. I have some of my own thoughts but will share them later.

R. v. N.S., 2022 ONCA 160

www.ontariocourts.ca

Still waiing for your thoughts.

 

[drlove]

Still waiing for your thoughts.

The thing is, this aspect of the law was never challenged outside of Ontario, so it was always enforceable in other provinces. However, they largely chose to ignore it. It will still be business as usual until the ruling gets appealed to the SCC. They will squash it, as they are just itching to make an example of Harper’s insolence.

 

[tmmsmyth]

My short answer re: the Court decision is they basically punted. The appeals court decision basically says none of the longstanding arguments that many have made against C-36 were litigated during the R. v. NS. trial and thus are irrelevant towards the appeal. In some sense I don't think this decision means a lot in the short term given that even if the struck the law down they would have almost certainly given the crown a stay to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I actually think the more interesting short term question is how does the SCC rule on the Sullivan case where the crown purposely refused to appeal lower court findings of unconstitutionality for many years until they finally got a lower court to rule in favor of the law and then let the defendant appeal the ruling.

My own view is I have increasingly less and less respect for the "career" civil service crown prosecutors and the lower to middle judiciary who quite obviously despite proclaiming politically neutrality play political games to further their own careers(I myself am involved indirectly in another constitutional challenge against the Federal govt where I have long despised the career supposedly apolitical Department of Justice lawyers who are all the same people under Trudeau as when the case started under Harper).

 

[drlove]

My short answer re: the Court decision is they basically punted. The appeals court decision basically says none of the longstanding arguments that many have made against C-36 were litigated during the R. v. NS. trial and thus are irrelevant towards the appeal. In some sense I don't think this decision means a lot in the short term given that even if the struck the law down they would have almost certainly given the crown a stay to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I actually think the more interesting short term question is how does the SCC rule on the Sullivan case where the crown purposely refused to appeal lower court findings of unconstitutionality for many years until they finally got a lower court to rule in favor of the law and then let the defendant appeal the ruling.

My own view is I have increasingly less and less respect for the "career" civil service crown prosecutors and the lower to middle judiciary who quite obviously despite proclaiming politically neutrality play political games to further their own careers(I myself am involved indirectly in another constitutional challenge against the Federal govt where I have long despised the career supposedly apolitical Department of Justice lawyers who are all the same people under Trudeau as when the case started under Harper).

So what does this mean in the long term? Am I correct in assuming that when this decision is appealed to the SCC, they will (in all likelihood) strike it down?

 

[drlove]

My short answer re: the Court decision is they basically punted. The appeals court decision basically says none of the longstanding arguments that many have made against C-36 were litigated during the R. v. NS. trial and thus are irrelevant towards the appeal. In some sense I don't think this decision means a lot in the short term given that even if the struck the law down they would have almost certainly given the crown a stay to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I actually think the more interesting short term question is how does the SCC rule on the Sullivan case where the crown purposely refused to appeal lower court findings of unconstitutionality for many years until they finally got a lower court to rule in favor of the law and then let the defendant appeal the ruling.

My own view is I have increasingly less and less respect for the "career" civil service crown prosecutors and the lower to middle judiciary who quite obviously despite proclaiming politically neutrality play political games to further their own careers(I myself am involved indirectly in another constitutional challenge against the Federal govt where I have long despised the career supposedly apolitical Department of Justice lawyers who are all the same people under Trudeau as when the case started under Harper).

Given that the appeals court basically punted, as you said - In your estimation, how long will it be before this case is heard by the SCC?

 

[poker]

Can someone give me the basic readers digest version of what is now legal, and isn’t.