Bedford v. Canada

Our Osgoode Hall guide covers the building's architecture and general history. This page is about one specific case argued inside it — a genuine legal turning point, not just a building tour.

A Toronto case challenges the Criminal Code

In 2007, three current and former sex workers — Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott — applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, arguing that Criminal Code provisions on bawdy-houses, "living on the avails" of prostitution, and public communication forced sex workers into unsafe conditions, violating their Charter right to security of the person. On September 28, 2010, Justice Susan Himel agreed, striking down all three provisions. The federal and Ontario governments appealed.

Decided at Osgoode Hall

The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which — unlike the trial-level Superior Court — sits at Osgoode Hall itself. Following a three-day hearing, the Court of Appeal ruled on March 26, 2012: it upheld the bawdy-house provision as unconstitutional, narrowed the "living on the avails" provision, and reinstated the public communication provision with a suspended declaration — a split, closely watched decision handed down inside the same building this guide's Osgoode Hall page covers architecturally.

The Supreme Court's final word

Both sides appealed further, and on December 20, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that all three provisions were unconstitutional, giving Parliament one year to legislate a replacement. Parliament responded with the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act in 2014, criminalizing the purchase rather than the sale of sexual services — a framework that remains in force. Bedford is now taught as one of the defining Charter section 7 cases of the post-1982 era.

Sources

• Supreme Court of Canada — Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72
• Centre for Constitutional Studies — Canada (AG) v Bedford