Ontario Court of Appeal greenlights brothels, sweeps aside many of Canada’s anti-pros

[dcbogey]

You are thinking as a client. There are plenty of fs SC's & MP's. Girls choose to work where the mileage fits their comfort levels. There has always been places where all levels of service are offered...clients & MPA's end up where ever it suits their needs. That wont change because of the federal gov deeming it unconstitutional to not allow SW's to work indoors.

That's one of the more intelligent things I've read on this board

 

[MPAsquared]

I see today's Court ruling very differently than most here seem to.

First, the Court acknowledged in its ruling that "out-calls" are effectively legal, and are probably less impacted by today's decision than other forms of service.

Second, by striking down the bawdy-house provisions, the Court is demanding that municipal governments act to fill the licensing void being created: that means that, for example, each City Council will likely act quickly to limit the number of legal "brothels" to just one or two per municipality, and restrict where they may be located to industrial areas of the City, much as most City Councils across Ontario have done to regulate Strip Clubs (exceptions having been grandfathered in place for Strip Clubs, no such exceptions exist for brothels).

This will mean that FEWER options will exist for "brothels" than exist today for in-call locations, and that landlords will have increased powers to throw out any tenant suspected of running an unlicensed business out of residential accommodations (whether her home or otherwise). Regulations may also require various client records to be retained by the "brothel", with the potential of publishing john lists as required to shame visitors ("for their own safety", of course, in case any disease were ever discovered among the service providers).

Further, by bringing in-calls above board, legally speaking, and to ensure regulations are being met, municipalities will be free to apply similar regulations to any out-call agency or provider, again requiring licensing, records, and disease testing for anyone found to be advertising services.

Sure, criminal sanction would no longer be available, but if a city fines someone $10,000 per occurrence is there an effective difference?

Excellent points!! How true, this could make for a very competitive run for a Brothel License.

MP's currently pay an $11,000 annual fee to hold a Body Rub license; MPA's pay about $500 for their personal Body Rubbers License.

That's one of the more intelligent things I've read on this board

Thanks

 

[Anynym]

Excellent points!! How true, this could make for a very competitive run for a Brothel License.

MP's currently pay an $11,000 annual fee to hold a Body Rub license; MPA's pay about $500 for their personal Body Rubbers License.

My guess is that the larger municipalities will limit the number of licenses to one (1), and will set the price through an auction held for that purpose, with city regulations to be announced in due course after the completion of the auction.

 

[Anynym]

I also believe that no municipality will have ANY interest in permitting a "small-time" operator to have a brothel license, so girls who might only be interested in seeing one or two clients a week will be SOL for in-calls. (They *might* be able to obtain an out-call license, depending on the whims of the municipal authorities).

 

[alexmst]

I see today's Court ruling very differently than most here seem to.

First, the Court acknowledged in its ruling that "out-calls" are effectively legal, and are probably less impacted by today's decision than other forms of service.

Second, by striking down the bawdy-house provisions, the Court is demanding that municipal governments act to fill the licensing void being created: that means that, for example, each City Council will likely act quickly to limit the number of legal "brothels" to just one or two per municipality, and restrict where they may be located to industrial areas of the City, much as most City Councils across Ontario have done to regulate Strip Clubs (exceptions having been grandfathered in place for Strip Clubs, no such exceptions exist for brothels).

This will mean that FEWER options will exist for "brothels" than exist today for in-call locations, and that landlords will have increased powers to throw out any tenant suspected of running an unlicensed business out of residential accommodations (whether her home or otherwise). Regulations may also require various client records to be retained by the "brothel", with the potential of publishing john lists as required to shame visitors ("for their own safety", of course, in case any disease were ever discovered among the service providers).

Further, by bringing in-calls above board, legally speaking, and to ensure regulations are being met, municipalities will be free to apply similar regulations to any out-call agency or provider, again requiring licensing, records, and disease testing for anyone found to be advertising services.

Sure, criminal sanction would no longer be available, but if a city fines someone $10,000 per occurrence is there an effective difference?

You are even more dire in your projections than I was lol. I do agree though that if people think this will result in mansions in Rosedale and Forest Hill being converted to legal brothels (as fun as I think that would be), the powerful NIMBY forces n those neighborhoods will never allow that to happen, and if one thinks they can't influence the zoning powers that be, think again.

There are upsides and downsides to today's ruling. An upside over the present is that after the waiting period the dreaded 'found in" will no longer apply. For guys with Canadian citizenship who travel between Canada and the U.S. a lot on business, getting nailed on that charge can result in a ban on entering the U.S. for the Canadian in question as the charge falls under the bad morals clause and is grounds to refuse entry. Now I know the odds of being arrested for that in Toronto are next to nil, but it is still a risk in the back of one's mind and some whose livelihood depends on cross-border travel only see outcalls as a result, but given no risk would prefer incalls.

There is an advantage to the street scene workers, but I don't give them my custom anyway.

The downside is it takes a 'wink wink we know you are there but don't see you' industry and makes it visible. This will get those who hate the industry up in arms, and they will create fear mongering amongst homeowners and condo boards about what will happen if incalls are allowed in the area. Of course at present incalls are already in the area and all is well, but this law change MAY result in more pressure on existing incalls.

A big problem is what will the Toronto zoning do in response? Anynym points out, they may say all brothels and incalls must relocate to the docklands or the CN yard. Brampton might be the only place brothels are allowed to operate lol. I really doubt zoning will let legal brothels buy up properties wherever in the city they want and advertise. The Germans regulate where brothels are allowed to be, I don't think Toronto will get to be a free-for-all in respects to zoning., nor do I see zoning allowing an Amsterdam-style tourist attraction large red light district on say Queen St. I hadn't thought about the limiting of allowed brothels by number like they do with strip clubs brought up by Anynym, but that is another device they could use.

 

[slidebone]

I stand ready to be corrected but since the 1867 Constitutional Act/BNA specifically gave the authority for Criminal Law to the Federal Government, I do not believe a Province can use "not-withstanding" with regard to the Criminal Law.

This is correct. The provinces can only use the notwithstanding clause for legislation that the provinces themselves enact. The provinces cannot enact criminal legislation, only the feds can do that. Any law regulating or prohibiting prostitution would have to be federal.

It would be unconstitutional for the provinces to try to pass a law regulating or prohibiting prostitution (as well as for the municipality).

As long as the SCC follows the lower courts, I doubt the conservatives will challenge such a popular law. Remember the conservatives amended the law recently to make sure that gay marriages performed in this country are legal in other jurisdictions. They actually created a special exception to do that which is (probably) not available to straight couples.

However, I don't feel so certain that the SCC will follow the Court of Appeal or the application judge. You just never know with the SCC. I hope that the SCC follows the application judge's decision.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Second, by striking down the bawdy-house provisions, the Court is demanding that municipal governments act to fill the licensing void being created: that means that, for example, each City Council will likely act quickly to limit the number of legal "brothels" to just one or two per municipality, and restrict where they may be located to industrial areas of the City, much as most City Councils across Ontario have done to regulate Strip Clubs (exceptions having been grandfathered in place for Strip Clubs, no such exceptions exist for brothels).

While I haven't really thought through the possible unintended consequences of the ruling, I find it tough to imagine any municipal efforts favoring brothels would have much success.

SPs and agencies work much differently than strip clubs. They don't need big establishments, liquor licences, etc. If the ruling stands, I suspect there will be a greater move towards incalls at hotels (and maybe condos). The city won't be able to do much about it and the police won't have much authority to do anything.

 

[Garden of Eden Ladies]

I see today's Court ruling very differently than most here seem to.

First, the Court acknowledged in its ruling that "out-calls" are effectively legal, and are probably less impacted by today's decision than other forms of service.

Second, by striking down the bawdy-house provisions, the Court is demanding that municipal governments act to fill the licensing void being created: that means that, for example, each City Council will likely act quickly to limit the number of legal "brothels" to just one or two per municipality, and restrict where they may be located to industrial areas of the City, much as most City Councils across Ontario have done to regulate Strip Clubs (exceptions having been grandfathered in place for Strip Clubs, no such exceptions exist for brothels).

This will mean that FEWER options will exist for "brothels" than exist today for in-call locations, and that landlords will have increased powers to throw out any tenant suspected of running an unlicensed business out of residential accommodations (whether her home or otherwise). Regulations may also require various client records to be retained by the "brothel", with the potential of publishing john lists as required to shame visitors ("for their own safety", of course, in case any disease were ever discovered among the service providers).

Further, by bringing in-calls above board, legally speaking, and to ensure regulations are being met, municipalities will be free to apply similar regulations to any out-call agency or provider, again requiring licensing, records, and disease testing for anyone found to be advertising services.

Sure, criminal sanction would no longer be available, but if a city fines someone $10,000 per occurrence is there an effective difference?

This is exactly why I think licensing could be a very bad idea. I do think the industry would need some standards, but the last thing I need is to have someone looking over my shoulder.


Thanks


Nicole

 

[lurkerjoe]

Presuming the ruling takes effect: in Ontario the law would effective change as follows:
Blue is strikeout, Red is add


§ 197. (1) In this Part,

“bet”
« pari »

“bet” means a bet that is placed on any contingency or event that is to take place in or out of Canada, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a bet that is placed on any contingency relating to a horse-race, fight, match or sporting event that is to take place in or out of Canada;

“common bawdy-house”
« maison de débauche »

“common bawdy-house” means a place that is
(a) kept or occupied, or
(b) resorted to by one or more persons
for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency;

§ 212. (1) Every one who

(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person, through circumstances of explotation.

Link to the ruling: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2012/2012ONCA0186.pdf

Practice the acts of indecency is basically meaningless. Swinger clubs essentially killed that provision. The entire definition is out.

 

[Ceiling Cat]

I think the average hobbyist will not see a big difference in the short term in the GTA. Less LE activity, yes. No big changes or price differences and no rush of new recruits joining the service side.

 

[Aardvark154]

what will the Toronto zoning do in response? Anynym points out, they may say all brothels and incalls must relocate to the docklands or the CN yard.

Although Sydney and Toronto are entirely different places this is a neighborhood in Sydney in which is located a well known Brothel. (the Buildings in this view are NOT Brothels but they look quite similar to the buildings which are). This is a mixed use neighbourhood, and I rather doubt the typical person walking by could tell which is a residence, which is a Brothel, and which is an office.

 

[mandrill]

The municipalities are too greedy to limit the # of licences. This isn't the 1950's. I'm guessing you have an increase in the # of establishments in strip malls in Brampton and Markham and they will now be FS. The days of the MPA are over. Almost all MP's will switch to FS or die within 2 or 3 years, as surely as "no touch" strip clubs died out.

The other big difference? Whereas now owners sink $10-$50,000 into setting up their joint, in the future companies will buy or long-term lease premises and sink up to a million $ into making the place swank.

Look at the FKK's in Germany. Those places are huge luxurious clubs with non alcoholic bars, buffets, saunas and whirlpool baths and dozens of rooms and girls. That's the new future and I love it!!!!!

 

[flyingwood]

This is exactly why I think licensing could be a very bad idea. I do think the industry would need some standards, but the last thing I need is to have someone looking over my shoulder.

Yes. Licensing and zoning could kill many agencies' and indies' business. They could also have impact on hourly rates, not a good change for hobbyists.

 

[Anynym]

It would be unconstitutional for the provinces to try to pass a law regulating or prohibiting prostitution (as well as for the municipality).

Not at all. As a legal business, it is up to the municipality to determine what zoning bylaws apply, and what health issues arise. Currently, no municipality in Ontario has any zoning which permits a brothel to operate; that void must be addressed as municipalities are required to permit legal businesses to operate. However, they are within their powers to limit the number of businesses which are granted a license, as well as what zoning allows it.

Many municipalities already restrict strip clubs to operate in an industrial zone (except those clubs which were legally operating at the time the zoning amendments were instituted).

And because in-calls are being brought above-board, we can expect similar scrutiny of out-calls. Both businesses will be subject to licensing and regulations from the municipality, who are empowered to oversee health issues in each part of the province of Ontario.

 

[james t kirk]

The municipalities are too greedy to limit the # of licences. This isn't the 1950's. I'm guessing you have an increase in the # of establishments in strip malls in Brampton and Markham and they will now be FS. The days of the MPA are over. Almost all MP's will switch to FS or die within 2 or 3 years, as surely as "no touch" strip clubs died out.

The other big difference? Whereas now owners sink $10-$50,000 into setting up their joint, in the future companies will buy or long-term lease premises and sink up to a million $ into making the place swank.

Look at the FKK's in Germany. Those places are huge luxurious clubs with non alcoholic bars, buffets, saunas and whirlpool baths and dozens of rooms and girls. That's the new future and I love it!!!!!

You da man.

But when you think about it, maybe being North America's version of Bangkok would attract many a cash flush tourist from all over the States.

 

[keyser]

I see today's Court ruling very differently than most here seem to.

First, the Court acknowledged in its ruling that "out-calls" are effectively legal, and are probably less impacted by today's decision than other forms of service.

Second, by striking down the bawdy-house provisions, the Court is demanding that municipal governments act to fill the licensing void being created: that means that, for example, each City Council will likely act quickly to limit the number of legal "brothels" to just one or two per municipality, and restrict where they may be located to industrial areas of the City, much as most City Councils across Ontario have done to regulate Strip Clubs (exceptions having been grandfathered in place for Strip Clubs, no such exceptions exist for brothels).

This will mean that FEWER options will exist for "brothels" than exist today for in-call locations, and that landlords will have increased powers to throw out any tenant suspected of running an unlicensed business out of residential accommodations (whether her home or otherwise). Regulations may also require various client records to be retained by the "brothel", with the potential of publishing john lists as required to shame visitors ("for their own safety", of course, in case any disease were ever discovered among the service providers).

Further, by bringing in-calls above board, legally speaking, and to ensure regulations are being met, municipalities will be free to apply similar regulations to any out-call agency or provider, again requiring licensing, records, and disease testing for anyone found to be advertising services.

Sure, criminal sanction would no longer be available, but if a city fines someone $10,000 per occurrence is there an effective difference?

Is the city now obligated to license brothels? Not sure it necessarily follows. It may not be illegal anymore, but what if the city says "We don't want brothels within the city limits?" It's legal in Nevada but there are no licensed brothels in Las Vegas.

 

[keyser]

My guess is that the larger municipalities will limit the number of licenses to one (1), and will set the price through an auction held for that purpose, with city regulations to be announced in due course after the completion of the auction.

There is no logic in that idea. It's pretty safe to say that will not happen.

 

[lurkerjoe]

As places where any member of the public permitted under the llcensing laws may enter, I think you would find that SCs, like restaurants and theatres, were long ago held to be public places under the law.

Let us earnestly hope the proprietors of such hobby-sites are more thoughtful than the foolish posts here, which are just the sort of thing to convince the straightjohns and Cons that they'd better get some repression going fast.

Charge a "membership" fee and bingo it's a private club. Like swingers clubs. Try doing what they do in your car (a public place.)

 

[Aardvark154]

I think the average hobbyist will not see a big difference in the short term in the GTA. Less LE activity, yes. No big changes or price differences and no rush of new recruits joining the service side.

You I believe are spot on.

 

[Anynym]

Is the city now obligated to license brothels? Not sure it necessarily follows. It may not be illegal anymore, but what if the city says "We don't want brothels within the city limits?" It's legal in Nevada but there are no licensed brothels in Las Vegas.

Yes, a municipality in Ontario cannot eliminate a legal business through zoning or licensing limitations. But they can put severe restrictions on it, as they have done with strip clubs.

The City of Ottawa, for example, will not issue any new strip club licenses. And body rub parlour licenses are also restricted (albeit at a higher number but smaller establishment).

Ask the City of Toronto how many new strip clubs they're willing to license. I'm pretty sure they'll tell you Zero. Find me a single City Councillor who wants to have a brothel or a strip club in a residential neighbourhood in their ward.

And just as municipalities have established bylaws restricting activities which may occur at strip clubs (e.g. "no contact" bylaws), we can expect they will become similarly involved with activities at brothels.