The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the constitutionality of several sex work-related offenses, affirming that these laws do not infringe upon the security rights of sex workers. This decision pertains to two sections of the Criminal Code—286.2 and 286.3—which address the procurement of sexual services and deriving benefits from the purchase of such services. The court’s unanimous ruling clarified that these provisions do not impede the ability of sex workers to implement safety measures, such as working in secure indoor locations, hiring third-party security, or collaborating with colleagues.
The court examined the legislative history of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which focuses on curbing the demand for sex work and safeguarding individuals from exploitation. Parliament’s language—specifically terms like “commercial enterprise” and “commodification of sexual activity”—was interpreted to categorize any third party profiting from another’s sex work as exploitative and, therefore, undesirable.
Criticism from various advocacy groups has surged in response to the ruling. The BC Civil Liberties Association argued that distinguishing between commercial exploitation and safety-enhancement is challenging under the law’s framework, potentially barring sex workers from hiring others to ensure their safety. Additionally, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund highlighted that women constitute a significant portion of sex workers, urging the court to recognize the potentially discriminatory impact of these provisions concerning sex, gender, and race.
This legal debate finds its roots in the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Canada v. Bedford, which invalidated several prior sex work-related offenses on the grounds that they disproportionately affected the right to security. The recent ruling signifies a shift from the protections previously recognized in Bedford, underscoring the court’s current stance on balancing legal sanctions against perceived exploitation within the sex industry.
A more detailed account of the court’s recent decision and its implications for the sex work industry can be viewed on JURIST.