Toronto Escorts

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

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,896
68,400
113
Point taken. However, what happens if the crown loses and chooses not to appeal? In that case, would the the provisions still be in force in other provinces? How about the provision of purchasing? Will this have any effect either way? How likely is it that the purchasing provision will be declared unconstitutional also? Please take your time to respond as you read the decisions in other cases etc for an informed reply. Unfortunately, I am not well versed in. law, and how it pertains to C-36 so I’m at a bit of a loss as to what it means for enforcement in Ontario and especially other provinces. Hence, all the questions. Thanks!
The Crown will always appeal a major ruling of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It's a convention that it does this.

A ruling of the ON CA does not directly affect other provinces, but it certainly allows people in other provinces to raise the same arguments before their own courts.

So far, none of these cases affects purchasing, but the same reasoning applies and the government will be forced to re-legislate the entire area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drlove

drlove

Ph.D. in Pussyology
Oct 14, 2001
4,709
52
48
The doctor is in
The Crown will always appeal a major ruling of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It's a convention that it does this.

A ruling of the ON CA does not directly affect other provinces, but it certainly allows people in other provinces to raise the same arguments before their own courts.

So far, none of these cases affects purchasing, but the same reasoning applies and the government will be forced to re-legislate the entire area.
Interesting, as I’ve read online that if these provisions are struck down, it will pave the way for agencies to become legal. At that point, C-36 would almost ironic as legal agencies would be offering a legal service which is illegal to purchase. Would LE simply sit outside and arrest patrons as they walked in?! Only half joking here lol
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,896
68,400
113
Interesting, as I’ve read online that if these provisions are struck down, it will pave the way for agencies to become legal. At that point, C-36 would almost ironic as legal agencies would be offering a legal service which is illegal to purchase. Would LE simply sit outside and arrest patrons as they walked in?! Only half joking here lol
If the only provision left is the anti-john provision, I can't imagine that the Bench would allow it to survive. The argument that forcing johns to be furtive and anonymous places women at risk is available to finish it off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drlove

drlove

Ph.D. in Pussyology
Oct 14, 2001
4,709
52
48
The doctor is in
About a year after the ON CA drops its decision.
When do you expect that the ON CA will render their verdict? Is there an accepted time period for these sorts of cases? E.g. Three months, six months etc..
 

drlove

Ph.D. in Pussyology
Oct 14, 2001
4,709
52
48
The doctor is in
If the only provision left is the anti-john provision, I can't imagine that the Bench would allow it to survive. The argument that forcing johns to be furtive and anonymous places women at risk is available to finish it off.
Just to play devil’s advocate, let’s say the three impugned provisions are eventually struck down in their entirety by the SCC. Further, as you suggested, assume that the SCC also strikes down the anti John provision as well. This in effect would decriminalize prostitution. Two questions:
1) Would the SCC leave it decriminalized, or as before give Parliament time to craft new laws?
2) Assuming a Conservative government is in power at the time, could they not just decide to make prostitution entirely illegal to appease themselves and their base / party faithful?

If such a scenario plays out, we would be much worse off than we are now.
 

tmmsmyth

Member
Nov 15, 2019
91
39
18
I made a thread on the Politics and International Board about the hearing at the US Supreme Court today on overturning Roe vs Wade. While no one would ever admit this in Canadian legal circles I do think the apparently high odds that SCOTUS is going to overturn Roe will make the Supreme Court of Canada want to push harder than normal in the other direction. Obviously abortion is unlikely to return as a political issues in Canada(although perhaps maybe not and the Liberals/NDP will take the opportunity to try to create even more problems for Erin O'Toole) but throwing out C-36 in it's entirety would very much be a blow to Canadian Social Conservatives and a "message" decision that Canada is different from the US.

In terms of the Conservatives, yes they could try to just make prostitution entirely illegal and perhaps use notwithstanding clause as well. They could do the same with abortion too including the notwithstanding clause. I think the odds of this happening in Canada however, at the moment are quite low. I think an outright full on ban on prostitution would be successfully challenged on Charter grounds but different ones than what have to been date used in most litigation regarding this issue.

I do think the possibility of Roe being overturned is quite bad for the Nordic Model feminist types. At a political level people who strongly oppose abortion strongly oppose prostitution generally while those who support sex work are almost all of the time pro choice. The Nordic model feminist kind of have the policy ala carte model especially as many of these US state anti abortion laws are very Nordic Model-ish in terms of asymmetric criminalization. My sense is a lot Nordic model feminists in the coming are going to be forced to go full Social Conservative or full pro sex work Libertarian. You already see this on Twitter while some of the Nordic types are criticizing overturning Roe a lot seem to be quite silent on the issue and instead focusing on the "evils" of prostitution, pornography, and surrogacy. Given there is actually a long history of pro-life feminists I could easily see a big chunk of these Nordic model people moving over to the full social conservative pro life side.

 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

drlove

Ph.D. in Pussyology
Oct 14, 2001
4,709
52
48
The doctor is in
I suspect the Ontario Court Of Appeal will render its decision by April of this year, in our favour. The Crown will then make its case before the SCC, circa 2023/2024. It’s my belief the SCC will strike down the impugned provisions, thus decriminalizing brothels/living off the avails. Next, an affected party will likely petition the SCC to also decriminalize the purchasing provision, so that by 2025 C-36 will be history. Does this seem like an accurate timeline? I was just taking an educated guess on what may transpire…
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,896
68,400
113
I suspect the Ontario Court Of Appeal will render its decision by April of this year, in our favour. The Crown will then make its case before the SCC, circa 2023/2024. It’s my belief the SCC will strike down the impugned provisions, thus decriminalizing brothels/living off the avails. Next, an affected party will likely petition the SCC to also decriminalize the purchasing provision, so that by 2025 C-36 will be history. Does this seem like an accurate timeline? I was just taking an educated guess on what may transpire…
Takes about a year to move a case from the ON C A to the SCC. All the work has already been done for the ON C A hearing. You just have to get a slot in the SCC's calendar.
 

goalie000

Wanting more!!
Sep 7, 2001
4,276
646
113
Your place!!
I got a lot of shit back during election season for saying this, but I’m going to say it again: if you’re on this site, you’re presumably a hobbyist, in which case if you vote conservative you are voting against your own interests. I know politics are a team sport now and we automatically have to hate the other side, but Peter Mackay is very possibly the next conservative candidate and happens to be one of the main players in drafting C-36. We have an opportunity now. Singh has publicly stated that he supports decriminalization, Trudeau has characteristically flip-flopped and been both for and against decriminalization, depending upon when he was asked and who was asking. A Trudeau-Singh coalition like we have now is probably the best case scenario for getting decriminalization. I know us lefties are a bunch of snowflakes, but for once, it might actually be better to think with your dick...
Thinking like this and putting your vote on this one single issue is not the greatest idea in MHO!
 
  • Like
Reactions: John_Jacob

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
17,885
12,294
113
Thinking like this and putting your vote on this one single issue is not the greatest idea in MHO!
It is if the hobby you enjoy lands you in jail because of a Conservative government trying to appease their religious nut job base.
 
I am a bit confused :) Isn't this the Supreme Court case settled in 2021 which after going back and forth between arguments dismissed the appeal of the Crown?

The issue seems to be related to:
The Court did not explicitly state whether this declaration would apply retroactively or purely prospectively at the conclusion of the period of suspension. Since Parliament did not state whether the amendments were to apply retroactively or prospectively.

Also discussed is the fact that the agency was "exploitive" of the workers.

Disposition[124] I would therefore allow the appeals, set aside the convictions, and restore the order of the trial judge quashing counts 6 and 13 of the indictment.

With two dissenting opinions

Is there something else to be decided or are we waiting for the Crown's appeal of one of the other cases and still pending?
 

drlove

Ph.D. in Pussyology
Oct 14, 2001
4,709
52
48
The doctor is in
I am a bit confused :) Isn't this the Supreme Court case settled in 2021 which after going back and forth between arguments dismissed the appeal of the Crown?

The issue seems to be related to:
The Court did not explicitly state whether this declaration would apply retroactively or purely prospectively at the conclusion of the period of suspension. Since Parliament did not state whether the amendments were to apply retroactively or prospectively.

Also discussed is the fact that the agency was "exploitive" of the workers.

Disposition[124] I would therefore allow the appeals, set aside the convictions, and restore the order of the trial judge quashing counts 6 and 13 of the indictment.

With two dissenting opinions

Is there something else to be decided or are we waiting for the Crown's appeal of one of the other cases and still pending?
As far as I know, the most recent decision found the law’s constitutional, which is in direct conflict with the previous decision. The case was then appealed to the Ontario Court Of Appeal, which is scheduled to render its decision sometime later this year, presumably the summer or early Fall. Needless to say, whatever the outcome, it’s likely to proceed to the SCC. If the Supreme Court finds in favour, then the only remaining provision left standing would be the purchasing provision. There is also another challenge making its way through the courts that is challenging C-36 in it’s entirety, so I’d give it until about 2025 before we know the final outcome.
 
C36 Upheld in Alliance of Sexworkers lawsuit (filed a few years ago). It's confusing since I believe the score is 3 wins and 1 loss on issue. So, the current case upholds clients are illegal and just protects workers.

So now we have conflicting rulings out of the Ontario Superior Court.

It has been a while since I tracked the cases, but as I recall, we have 2 or 3 prior Ontario Superior Court wins challenging C36, including the escort agency case. Supposedly, one was appealed by the Crown to the Court of Appeals, with that decision expected yet this year/

In the current news, it didn't mention as I recall, the issue that under C36, technically, the customer is illegal, just not the sexworker. Of course, at least the 3 largest cities PD announced would not enforce consenting adults unless they were underage or not in Canada legally.

In the article, it also said:
The alliance plans to appeal the decision. A House of Commons justice committee review last year of the new 2014 laws on sex work found the laws made sex work more dangerous. Then-attorney general David Lametti acknowledged the laws were "divisive" and that more must be done to address the risks and harms sex workers face.
 

escortsxxx

Well-known member
Jul 15, 2004
3,284
851
113
Tdot
C36 Upheld in Alliance of Sexworkers lawsuit (filed a few years ago). It's confusing since I believe the score is 3 wins and 1 loss on issue. So, the current case upholds clients are illegal and just protects workers.

So now we have conflicting rulings out of the Ontario Superior Court.

It has been a while since I tracked the cases, but as I recall, we have 2 or 3 prior Ontario Superior Court wins challenging C36, including the escort agency case. Supposedly, one was appealed by the Crown to the Court of Appeals, with that decision expected yet this year/

In the current news, it didn't mention as I recall, the issue that under C36, technically, the customer is illegal, just not the sexworker. Of course, at least the 3 largest cities PD announced would not enforce consenting adults unless they were underage or not in Canada legally.

In the article, it also said:
The alliance plans to appeal the decision. A House of Commons justice committee review last year of the new 2014 laws on sex work found the laws made sex work more dangerous. Then-attorney general David Lametti acknowledged the laws were "divisive" and that more must be done to address the risks and harms sex workers face.
So where is this now? What was the last ruling?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts