I've read snippets of the decision, and it's fucking fantastic. My lawyer has read the whole thing and she was shocked at how bold the decision was, and likened it to the original Himel decision from Bedford, in regards to how well-reasoned and well-written it was. She's actually concerned that the Attorney General might not appeal it, because a failure on appeal would create a precedent across the province, which is something they might not want to do. Without an appeal, she thinks that it may not impact enforcement in any meaningful way (as much as it has been enforced so far).
One interesting bit of nuance involves the judge's use of language like "non-exploitative" and "non-coercive" third-party business arrangements, in regards to the material benefits clause. One could argue that some agency-like situations might not be immune from prosecution, depending on the conduct of the owners.
An interesting snippet, in regards to collectives like Allegra or OIC:
[208]Parliament could potentially have focused the effect of the law on third parties who are in coercive, exploitative relationships with sex workers. However, the provisions are drafted so broadly that they expose sex workers who desire to work cooperatively with other sex workers to the risk of criminal liability, and employees in noncoercive, non-exploitative relationships with sex workers to criminal liability. Sex workers who lack the desire, sophistication, and means to work independently are prevented from exploring the possibility of relationships with third-party managers on terms acceptable to the sex worker which might enhance the health and safety of the sex worker. The provisions are overly broad.
(Emphasis mine)
I don't want to overvalue nor undervalue this particular victory. The long-term implications are as yet unclear. But it's a victory nonetheless, and should be celebrated as such.