Major Ontario judicial decision strikes down Bill C-36 - BREAKING!!!

[marcus528]

Another charter challenge is happening:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/sex-trade-legal-challenge-canada-1.5969798

Londoner joins court action to throw out federal sex work law

A year ago, Hamad and Tiffany Anwar were poised to fight a Crown appeal of their acquittals on charges related to sex work right to the Supreme Court of Canada.

lfpress.com

 

[tmmsmyth]

So how do you think the government will respond to this suit?

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

Remember this Ontario Superior Court was the one with a very detailed, long, ruling decided that the old law violated the Charter based on safety which resulted in the conservatives passing the current C-36.

To we know if the judge that gave the prior ruling is still on the Court or will hear this case (woman foget her name without searching).

Is there a link to where we can read the case filing and later briefings? I have followed many cases in the US and wrote many articles about the prior Ontario case.

Remember with all the appeals it may be 10 years before there is a final outcome.

 

[mandrill]

The applicants are using Jim Lockyer again and Lockyer knows what he's doing.

I don't think you need "the same judge as last time". The Bench as a whole was pretty receptive to the arguments in Bedford , from the trial judge through the Court of Appeal and up to the SCC.

 

[drlove]

Remember this Ontario Superior Court was the one with a very detailed, long, ruling decided that the old law violated the Charter based on safety which resulted in the conservatives passing the current C-36.

To we know if the judge that gave the prior ruling is still on the Court or will hear this case (woman foget her name without searching).

Is there a link to where we can read the case filing and later briefings? I have followed many cases in the US and wrote many articles about the prior Ontario case.

Remember with all the appeals it may be 10 years before there is a final outcome.

Would it really take 10 years? The outcome of the London case already moved the needle in a positive direction. Moreover, the original charter challenge launched by Bedford et. al. laid the groundwork for a lot of arguments going forward. That said, and given previous evidence presented, would it not be easier for the courts to make a final determination - or at least move the case up the ranks to the Supreme Court quicker?

 

[WULA]

This new status quo seems pretty good to me.

The parts of C-36 - left and valid - are focused on underage girls, real sex trafficing and exploitive and coercive situations.

I am against all of those things.


And beware of unintended consequences of any proposed new legislation.

 

[mandrill]

This new status quo seems pretty good to me.

The parts of C-36 - left and valid - are focused on underage girls, real sex trafficing and exploitive and coercive situations.

I am against all of those things.


And beware of unintended consequences of any proposed new legislation.

You realize that pooning is still illegal, huh? As is running an agency?

 

[glamphotographer]

This woman brought us here, ya lost your hard-on.

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

You realize that pooning is still illegal, huh? As is running an agency?

I am not sure what the legal definition of pooning is, but no agency offers sex, and I never pay for sex, just companionship. Even when incalls for sex (bawdy houses) and sex agencies (living off avails) were illegal pre-Bedford, neither was a real issue since there was no payment for sex.

That is why sugar daddy sites like seeking arrangements and many similar services have had no issues with prostitution since you pay for their time and companionship. Even in the US, to be busted for prostitution, there has to be some agreement for sex.

 

[mandrill]

I am not sure what the legal definition of pooning is, but no agency offers sex, and I never pay for sex, just companionship. Even when incalls for sex (bawdy houses) and sex agencies (living off avails) were illegal pre-Bedford, neither was a real issue since there was no payment for sex.

That is why sugar daddy sites like seeking arrangements and many similar services have had no issues with prostitution since you pay for their time and companionship. Even in the US, to be busted for prostitution, there has to be some agreement for sex.

You could certainly have been found guilty of being a "found-in" in the pre C-36 era, even if you didn't pay for sex. Simply being in the forbidden building / unit was sufficient to base a criminal conviction. It was a question of location, rather than your own personal activity.

What C-36 did that was helpful was necessitate that the Crown prove that you were personally paying for sex, thus creating the opportunity for a guy to simply pull his pants back on and sit in the room when the cops burst in and to tell them to "go ahead, prove I'm having sex!"

 

[Jenesis]

You could certainly have been found guilty of being a "found-in" in the pre C-36 era, even if you didn't pay for sex. Simply being in the forbidden building / unit was sufficient to base a criminal conviction. It was a question of location, rather than your own personal activity.

What C-36 did that was helpful was necessitate that the Crown prove that you were personally paying for sex, thus creating the opportunity for a guy to simply pull his pants back on and sit in the room when the cops burst in and to tell them to "go ahead, prove I'm having sex!"

Which is why guys should not be texting for info and services. It acts as proof. Many escorts have tried to help guys understand this but most don’t seem to care.

 

[drlove]

Which is why guys should not be texting for info and services. It acts as proof. Many escorts have tried to help guys understand this but most don’t seem to care.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the way to get around that (especially when mentioning rates) is to ask” how much for an hour of your time?” if an ad or website does not mention it.

 

[Jenesis]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the way to get around that (especially when mentioning rates) is to ask” how much for an hour of your time?” if an ad or website does not mention it.

Guys don’t just ask that though, they as services, offer extra for extras, the list of incriminating evidence that guys put in text is unreal.

 

[Rako3]

Guys don’t just ask that though, they as services, offer extra for extras, the list of incriminating evidence that guys put in text is unreal.

Yes, the balance between discretion and making an hour drive and parking and coming upstairs only to discover something is off the menu. It's hard to ask, in a text, "Theoretically...just asking for a friend..."

 

[Jenesis]

Yes, the balance between discretion and making an hour drive and parking and coming upstairs only to discover something is off the menu. It's hard to ask, in a text, "Theoretically...just asking for a friend..."

If you said that to me, I would say have your friend contact me himself”. I would be thinking you were trying to book for someone else and I don’t do that.

It is a catch 22 and that is what the government wanted. They believe demand drives the industry so criminalize those who buy it. Especially since they can’t legally stop a woman from selling her body.

 

[mandrill]

I just read a note that this case has been appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal by the Crown. Looks like we're going to get a binding high level ruling after all.

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

Gee in the US we have to file a notice of appeal in 20 days. You must have a much longer period!

 

[mandrill]

Gee in the US we have to file a notice of appeal in 20 days. You must have a much longer period!

No, it's 30 days. But there was a publication ban that made the case hard to keep track of.

The upcoming event is a motion by the Crown to remove the stay of operation of the sections pending the appeal hearing. The appeals court judge heard a motion as to which interveners would be allowed to make submissions at the stay motion.

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

No, it's 30 days. But there was a publication ban that made the case hard to keep track of.

The upcoming event is a motion by the Crown to remove the stay on operation of the sections pending the appeal hearing. The appeals court judge heard a motion as to which interveners would be allowed to make submissions at the stay motion.

Good info. Do we know when the stay motion will be heard/decided and when we might know?

 

[mandrill]

Good info. Do we know when the stay motion will be heard/decided and when we might know?

I'll call the Court of Appeal and ask. Since everything is done on Zoom these days, it may not be open to the public.