Can the Ontario Supreme Court rule C 36 Unconstitutional? Then what?

[torboy]

So I understand Premier Wynne has referred C 36 to the Province's Attorney General, what follows from that? Does the matter then get referred to the Ontario Supreme Court or does a prosecution have to happen first and a case be presented to the courts? Can a Law not be referred to the Supreme Court of any province to test it's constitutionality? Does the Province's Attorney General have any sway with the Supreme Court?

Administration and Enforcement of Federal Laws is under Provincial jurisdiction, I assume that's the responsibility of a province's Attorney General, and while it's relatively rare for a province to decide not to enforce the Criminal Code, there was a case in Quebec where the province decided to not enforce a federal law.

 

[fuji]

IF that were to happen c36 would go into legal limbo until the SCC heard the appeal. Most likely the court would leave the law on the books until the appeal meaning you could technically still be charged.

But unlikely that the police and crown would be interested in bringing any new cases when they would all immediately be put on hold waiting for the appeal.

So effectively enforcement would stop until the SCC ruled on it.

 

[TeasePlease]

Come on guys, think this through. So, C-36 gets referred (or challenged) and is defeated. Then what?

Do you really think that the Conservatives (or more likely, by the time this plays out, the Liberals) will completely decriminalize prostitution? What indications have you seen to suggest that this is even a remote possibility?

So what happens if they blow C-36? What would they replace it with?

Has anyone come up with a credible alternative?

Didn't we learn from Bedford that we better think out all aspects of our "ask" before we push through?

 

[stay]

Come on guys, think this through. So, C-36 gets referred (or challenged) and is defeated. Then what?

Do you really think that the Conservatives (or more likely, by the time this plays out, the Liberals) will completely decriminalize prostitution? What indications have you seen to suggest that this is even a remote possibility?

So what happens if they blow C-36? What would they replace it with?

Has anyone come up with a credible alternative?

Didn't we learn from Bedford that we better think out all aspects of our "ask" before we push through?

STOP being so doom and gloom, we can always hope the NDP will get into power and prostitution will not only be legal, but unionized.

 

[rhuarc29]

STOP being so doom and gloom, we can always hope the NDP will get into power and prostitution will not only be legal, but unionized.

Uh, who the hell is hoping that?!

Come on guys, think this through. So, C-36 gets referred (or challenged) and is defeated. Then what?

Do you really think that the Conservatives (or more likely, by the time this plays out, the Liberals) will completely decriminalize prostitution? What indications have you seen to suggest that this is even a remote possibility?

I think there's a decent chance the Liberals may decriminalize. Even Conservatives may say "fuck it, we tried". We'd have better luck with legalization if the NDP were in power. But then the NDP would be in power lol.
Green party, anyone?

 

[TeasePlease]

IMO, NDP in power IS doom and gloom.

 

[MPAsquared]

Come on guys, think this through. So, C-36 gets referred (or challenged) and is defeated. Then what?

Do you really think that the Conservatives (or more likely, by the time this plays out, the Liberals) will completely decriminalize prostitution? What indications have you seen to suggest that this is even a remote possibility?

So what happens if they blow C-36? What would they replace it with?

Has anyone come up with a credible alternative?

Didn't we learn from Bedford that we better think out all aspects of our "ask" before we push through?

"We"?

IMO, NDP in power IS doom and gloom.

Coming from a conservative voter like you, you would say that.

Ndp are the only ones with some sense


Decrim is the only option. The point of bedford, and the outrage against c36, is that ANY criminalization of sex work causes harm, violence, & death. Their way has failed. C36 will be twice. So yes, Decrim it is.

"We" are working on presenting new options.

 

[stay]

Ndp are the only ones with some sense

Yup, paid time off for a sore throat.... Gotta love it. Picketing outside a MPA

Decrim is the only option. The point of bedford, and the outrage against c36, is that ANY criminalization of sex work causes harm, violence, & death. Their way has failed. C36 will be twice. So yes, Decrim it is.

IMHO ... Don't hold your breath, even with a NDP ( at least you aren't counting on JT anymore, liberals are continuing to FU ontario )

"We" are working on presenting new options.

I'm working on presenting new options too, it has been a longtime since the Bedford decision, but I am sloooow.

 

[d_jedi]

The law can be referred to the courts in Ontario by the provincial government, without the need for any charges to have been laid (I'm not a lawyer, don't take my word on this).
If the court rules it's unconstitutional, it's highly likely that will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Also highly likely that the law will officially remain on the books. But it'll be very highly unlikely that police will attempt to enforce an unconstitutional law. At this point, if we get to it, I think it's safe to say we'd be able to hobby safely (of course, some believe we can do so now.. but I think there is additional risk to doing so)

 

[TeasePlease]

"We"?



Coming from a conservative voter like you, you would say that.

Ndp are the only ones with some sense


Decrim is the only option. The point of bedford, and the outrage against c36, is that ANY criminalization of sex work causes harm, violence, & death. Their way has failed. C36 will be twice. So yes, Decrim it is.

"We" are working on presenting new options.

1. The royal "we"?

2. Decriminalization being the only option presumes an inherent right to engage in prostitution. If you can't establish that, the equally valid option is full criminalization.

 

[rld]

So I understand Premier Wynne has referred C 36 to the Province's Attorney General, what follows from that? Does the matter then get referred to the Ontario Supreme Court or does a prosecution have to happen first and a case be presented to the courts? Can a Law not be referred to the Supreme Court of any province to test it's constitutionality? Does the Province's Attorney General have any sway with the Supreme Court?

Administration and Enforcement of Federal Laws is under Provincial jurisdiction, I assume that's the responsibility of a province's Attorney General, and while it's relatively rare for a province to decide not to enforce the Criminal Code, there was a case in Quebec where the province decided to not enforce a federal law.

To reply to a few bits of your post:

1) There has not been an Ontario Supreme Court for decades, and it was not what it sounds like. I think you are talking about the Ontario Court of Appeal

2) The province can refer a case to the Ont C of A without a charge being laid, but this is an ineffective method in many constitutional challenges.

3) The AG has not sway or pull over the justices who make up the C of A.

4) I do not expect Ms. Wynne to either go this route or decide not to enforce the law.

 

[GPIDEAL]

"We"?



Coming from a conservative voter like you, you would say that.

Ndp are the only ones with some sense

With respect to economics, I'd rather not vote NDP. They sound great, but who will pay for any of their policies (for one thing)? I do like Andrea Horwath as an NDP leader. Mulcair seems to be effective although he lost a little credibility with that political leaflet mailing debacle.

Do you remember The RAE Days? (Even public sector workers disliked that).

The Liberals aren't managing this province well. I can only imagine the NDP.

 

[legmann]

I think there's a decent chance the Liberals may decriminalize.

Not going to happen, not with Trudeau Jr. running the party - and I am pretty sure he has almost directly said as much (on moral as well as strategic grounds; all he can do is toe the line).

 

[Toronto`s Finest]

Hmmmm .... interesting .... with grass roots Politicians / CUPE , OPSUE & other organizations coming out against criminalization & suggesting decriminalization ...... IF C-36 fails , to avoid another embarrassment of failure there MIGHT be a lean towards some form of decriminalization

 

[drlove]

The law can be referred to the courts in Ontario by the provincial government, without the need for any charges to have been laid (I'm not a lawyer, don't take my word on this).
If the court rules it's unconstitutional, it's highly likely that will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Also highly likely that the law will officially remain on the books. But it'll be very highly unlikely that police will attempt to enforce an unconstitutional law. At this point, if we get to it, I think it's safe to say we'd be able to hobby safely (of course, some believe we can do so now.. but I think there is additional risk to doing so)

How long will that take?

 

[d_jedi]

How long will that take?

The wheels of justice turn slowly. And government works even slower than that.
Optimistically, I think a few months. Pessimistically, a few years. But I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass.. as I said, I'm not a lawyer (although I play one on TV).

 

[MPAsquared]

1. The royal "we"?

2. Decriminalization being the only option presumes an inherent right to engage in prostitution. If you can't establish that, the equally valid option is full criminalization.

It has to be crim, Decrim, or Nordic. Nordic is done. Scc said ANY criminalization harms sex workers, AND takes away their constitutional rights. The next gov can try crim but we'll end up back at the scc again. Also, a lot has changed since bedford, since june, since the 6th. Our fight has waaaaay more muscle.

You are failing to acknowledge this. And present any reasoning behind your stance. No gov wants to be the next flop a-la-conservative. But you love the cons, so you are more bias than me.

With respect to economics, I'd rather not vote NDP. They sound great, but who will pay for any of their policies (for one thing)? I do like Andrea Horwath as an NDP leader. Mulcair seems to be effective although he lost a little credibility with that political leaflet mailing debacle.

Do you remember The RAE Days? (Even public sector workers disliked that).

The Liberals aren't managing this province well. I can only imagine the NDP.

I'm the child of a teacher, "rae days" were a constant topic of discussion in my house.

But, you guys don't make any sense. Federal & provincial are different. You don't like the cons. You don't like the liberals. Now you don't like Ndp either. You guys are more confusing than women!

Jt? I've never said i'd vote jt.

 

[Fallsguy]

There is not an Ontario Supreme Court but there is an Ontario Superior Court. Any provincial gov't can ask their highest court in their province for a referral on the constitutionality of any bill. The fact that Wynne has asked her AG to look into this suggests that the Premier feels this particular law is unconstitutional. It is highly unlikely her AG will report back to her that no, everything's fine with this law, start arresting the Johns. If that's what Wynne thought the outcome would be she wouldn't have asked. The fact that Joyless Smith stood up in the House and railed against the provincial Liberals for pursuing this suggests even the federal Cons already know the outcome of a referral.
First the AG has to report back to Wynne that she feels the law is unconstitutional, then the Premier would instruct the AG to seek a referral in the Ontario Court. Meanwhile the law would not be enforced in Ontario and once it was found unconstitutional and against the Charter it would be as good as dead, at least in Ontario.
The federal gov't would have the right to appeal. If it's still the Cons, of course they would appeal. I think the Libs or NDP would just leave it at that and let the Law die.

 

[shakenbake]

To reply to a few bits of your post:

1) There has not been an Ontario Supreme Court for decades, and it was not what it sounds like. I think you are talking about the Ontario Court of Appeal

2) The province can refer a case to the Ont C of A without a charge being laid, but this is an ineffective method in many constitutional challenges.

3) The AG has not sway or pull over the justices who make up the C of A.

4) I do not expect Ms. Wynne to either go this route or decide not to enforce the law.

Actually, it is the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

 

[squeezer]

Jt? I've never said i'd vote jt.

I agree voting JT means holding one's nose tightly but the unfortunate reality is Green Party and NDP who would both be my choice over JT do not stand a chance of unseating the Devils so based on strategic voting as in the Provincial elections JT is the only choice.