ONtarion Court Decision this Monday!

[Hiding]

Yes, my bad.

Can anyone say, 'appeal'? It's not over yet.

Only in higher court, which means the SCC. This decision was made based on an appeal.

Yes, there will be more to come.
From Nikki's Twitter: "Whatever happens today, we have every intention of being heard by the SCC, and will fight for our rights at the highest level."

Huge thank you to the strong women at SPOC for fighting for what they think is right.

 

[dreamblade]

Things are not going to change overnight.

The court said it will strike the word “prostitution” from the definition of "common bawdy-house," as it applies to Section 210 of the Criminal Code, which otherwise prevents prostitutes from offering services out of fixed indoor locations such as brothels or their homes.

However, the court said the bawdy-house provisions would not be declared invalid for 12 months, so that Parliament can have a chance to draft Charter-compliant provisions to replace them, if it chooses to do so.

The court will also clarify that the prohibition of living off the avails of prostitution – as spelled out in Section 212(1)(j) of the Criminal Code – should pertain only to those who do so “in circumstances of exploitation.”

The changes to the "living-off-the-avails" provision will not come into effect for 30 days.

 

[T-boy]

How does the "living off the avails" part effect agency's?

Aren't agency's already "living off the avails" of an escort? Will this mean that an agency has to now officially declare its income and do a proper tax return like a normal business? Does it, in effect, make an agency legal as a business?

 

[dreamblade]

How does the "living off the avails" part effect agency's?

Aren't agency's already "living off the avails" of an escort? Will this mean that an agency has to now officially declare its income and do a proper tax return like a normal business? Does it, in effect, make an agency legal as a business?

Yes indeed.

 

[Aardvark154]

Decision released! OCA upholds Himel's ruling on 210 and 212(j), but overrules her judgment on 213(c)

Bawdy house and Avails law has been struck down. Communicating for Purposes of Prostitution is still illegal.

This is the best outcome, and a clear victory.

I would agree.

 

[Aardvark154]

But the govt can still appeal this, right??

Yes, and the Bawdy House provisions are stayed for a year to allow Parliament to rewrite the law in compliance with the Charter. I rather doubt that the former will occur.

 

[oldjones]

How does the "living off the avails" part effect agency's?

Aren't agency's already "living off the avails" of an escort? Will this mean that an agency has to now officially declare its income and do a proper tax return like a normal business? Does it, in effect, make an agency legal as a business?

They always did.

Nothing in this changes the tax law. It essentially says: Declare it or else, legally earned or not, it's income. There was a famous tax case of a madame which is always cited as the precedent that says the tax department a) doesn't care as long as they collect, b) won't tell what they find out from your reporting like a good citizen.

What it means for agencies is that they can drop the already outmoded fictions like 'donations', 'roses', 'we provide companionable introductions only' and such, and be blunt about '$50 additional for greek'.

And one can only speculate wildly about MP possibilities.

 

[GPIDEAL]

http://spoc.ca/Laws,_SPOC_challenge.pdf < cliff notes on the laws being challenged.

For clarity, this will not affect the following things:
- trafficking
- exploitation
- forced working conditions
- public decency laws
- communicating for the purposes of in public

These all are covered in other parts of the CC (or in the case of communicating, 213(c) which was overturned by Himel last year but the Court of Appeals disagrees with her- still illegal).

Way to go Becky. You did all the hard research and summations for us. Thanks also to Oldjones and anybody else that asked and answered questions in this thread. Congrats to the fearless fighters from SPOC (special congrats to T-Girl Nikki), the plaintiffs/appellants and the lawyer himself (God, what's his name again? He's like the Allan Dershowitz of Canada).

 

[Hiding]

the lawyer himself (God, what's his name again? He's like the Allan Dershowitz of Canada).

Alan Young and Ron Marzel.

And thanks


Tune in Newstalk1010 to hear a discussion about it, including some familiar voices, then move over to Politics and Power (CBC) to catch Nikki's appearance.

100% this is going to SCC!

 

[goomba]

me too.....

 

[Mod100]

You don't need a lawyer to answer that, I can.

It will still be against the law to 1) engage in sexual activity in a public place and 2) solicit for sex in public. Extra offerings in SCs are considered public places therefore still illegal (there is past precedent for this). MPs might become known as common bawdy houses but ... really I don't think that world will change much if at all. Sort of depends if the MPs are viewed as private places.

If the client is paying the room fee (renting the room) in an MP, would that be considered private as it would in a hotel?

 

[oldjones]

It would be hard to argue it was public, if the door is closed and admission restricted. What makes an MP a bawdyhouse in that instance is repeated paid sex-acts, not the public indecency stuff. So with the door closed, and the kept for the purposes of prostitution stuff struck down, it would seem MPs are as safe as houses.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Way to go Becky. You did all the hard research and summations for us. Thanks also to Oldjones and anybody else that asked and answered questions in this thread. Congrats to the fearless fighters from SPOC (special congrats to T-Girl Nikki), the plaintiffs/appellants and the lawyer himself (God, what's his name again? He's like the Allan Dershowitz of Canada).

I would also like to congratulate Becky, Alan Young, T-Girl Nikki and everyone else involved in this case.

Regardless of how this ultimately plays out, the decision today is a great moral victory and will help reaffirm that most people know there are more important issues to worry about then what might be going on inside a massage parlour or hotel room.

 

[MPAsquared]

what are you talking about,,,this is a total change. We can have private vip rooms again qith couches or even full on beds ......re-open the Fan!!!! And MP's will be fs and legal.

I disagree. MP's are still licensed to abide by their bylaws. That doesnt disappear because of today's ruling.

They always did.

Nothing in this changes the tax law. It essentially says: Declare it or else, legally earned or not, it's income. There was a famous tax case of a madame which is always cited as the precedent that says the tax department a) doesn't care as long as they collect, b) won't tell what they find out from your reporting like a good citizen.

What it means for agencies is that they can drop the already outmoded fictions like 'donations', 'roses', 'we provide companionable introductions only' and such, and be blunt about '$50 additional for greek'.

And one can only speculate wildly about MP possibilities.

I dont foresee much change on the MP end. Some offer FS and deal with the legal ramifications, others dont. Girls that dont want to provide FS work at spas that dont offer it. That wont change.

If the client is paying the room fee (renting the room) in an MP, would that be considered private as it would in a hotel?

No. An licensed Body Rub Parlor is still just that. Its not suddenly a private residence.

 

[shakenbake]

They always did.

Nothing in this changes the tax law. It essentially says: Declare it or else, legally earned or not, it's income. There was a famous tax case of a madame which is always cited as the precedent that says the tax department a) doesn't care as long as they collect, b) won't tell what they find out from your reporting like a good citizen.

QUOTE]Section 241 of the Income TAX Act prohibits disclosure to a third party, unless certain legal requirements are met. Please don't ask me about these requirements, as I haven't had the time to research it any further. However, when it is no longer illegal to run a bawdy house, I would wager that these requirements (e.g., court orders, warrants, etc.) would not be valid or enforceable.