docIntervener
download 
Plainte Transcription
Intervener
Court File No. 34788 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ONTARIO) B E T W E E N: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Appellants/Respondents on Cross- Appeal -andTERRI JEAN BEDFORD, AMY LEBOVITCH and VALERIE SCOTT Respondents/Appellants on Cross-Appeal FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICES OF TORONTO INC. (Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Supreme Court of Canada) Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto Inc. 415 Yonge Street, Suite 803 Toronto, Ontario M5B 2E7 Tel: (416) 408-4041 Fax: (416) 408-4268 Community Legal Services – Ottawa Centre 1 Nicholas Street, Suite 422 Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7B7 Tel: (613) 241-7008 Fax: (613) 241-8680 Christa Big Canoe (LSUC No. 53203N) Emily Hill (LSUC No. 46899Q) Charles McDonald Counsel for the Intervener Agent for the Intervener TO: THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND TO: OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL Ignatt Kaneff Building York University 4700 Keele Street Toronto ON M3J 1P3 SACKGOLDBLATT MITCHELL LLP 30 Metcalfe Street, Suite 500 Ottawa ON K1P 5L4 Alan N. Young Tel: 416-736-5595 Fax: 416-736-5736 [email protected] Fiona Campbell Tel: 613-482-2451 Fax: 613-235-3041 [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Terri-Jean Bedford Agent for the Respondent, Terri-Jean Bedford AND TO: SACK GOLDBLATT MITCHELL LLP 20 Dundas Street West Suite 1100 Toronto ON M5G 2G8 SACK GOLDBLATT MITCHELL LLP 30 Metcalfe Street Suite 500 Ottawa ON K1P 5L4 Marlys A. Edwardh/ Daniel Sheppard Tel: 416-979-6442 Fax: 416-979-4430 [email protected] Fiona Campbell Tel: 613-482-2451 Fax: 613-235-3041 [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Valerie Scott Agent for the Respondent, Valerie Scott AND TO: MARZEL LAW 265 Rimrock Road Suite 200 Toronto ON M3J 3C6 SACK GOLDBLATT MITCHELL LLP 30 Metcalfe Street Suite 500 Ottawa ON K1P 4L4 Ron Marzel/ Stacey Nichols Tel: 416-485-5800 ext. 233 Fax: 416-485-1610 Fiona Campbell Tel: 613-482-2451 Fax: 613-235-3041 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Amy Lebovitch Agent for the Respondent, Amy Lebovitch AND TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA The Exchange Tower 130 King Street West Suite 3400 Toronto ON M5X 1K6 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Bank of Canada Building – East Tower 234 Wellington Street Room 1212 Ottawa ON K1A 0H8 Michael H. Morris/ Gail Sinclair/ Nancy Dennison Tel: 416-973-9704 Fax: 416-952-4518 [email protected] Christopher M. Rupar Counsel for the Appellant, Attorney General of Canada Agent for the Appellant, Attorney General of Canada Tel: 613-941-2351 Fax: 613-954-1920 [email protected] AND TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO BURKE-ROBERTSON 720 Bay Street 441 MacLaren Street th 10 Floor Suite 200 Toronto ON M5G 2K1 Toronto ON K2P 2H3 Jamie C. Klukach/ Christine E. Bartlett-Hughes/ Megan Stephens Tel: 416-326-4600 Fax: 416-952-4518 [email protected] Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Tel: 613-236-9665 Fax: 613-235-4430 [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant, Attorney General of Ontario Agent for the Appellant, Attorney General of Ontario AND TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC 1200, Route de l’Église, 2ème étage NOËL & ASSOCIÉS 111, rue Champlain Québec QC G1V 4M1 Gatineau QC J8X 3R1 Sylvain Lebouf/ Julie Dassylva Tel : 418-643-1477 ext. 21010 Fax : 418-644- 7030 [email protected] Pierre Landry Tel : 819-711-7393 Fax : 819-771-5397 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Quebec Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of Quebec AND TO: FOY ALLISON LAW GROUP 2438 Marine Drive Suite 207 West Vancouver BC V7V 1L2 GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP 160 Elgin Street Suite 2600 Ottawa ON K1P 1C3 Gwendoline Allison Tel: 604-922-9282 Fax: 604-922-9283 [email protected] D. Lynne Watt Tel: 613-786-8695 Fax: 613-788-3509 [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, AWCEP Asian Women for Equality Society, operating as Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution Agent for the Intervener, AWCEP Asian Women for Equality Society, operating as Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution AND TO: HUNTER LITIGATION CHAMBERS LAW 1040 West Georgia Street Suite 2100 Vancouver BC V6E 4H1 MICHAEL J. SOBKIN 90 blvd de Lucerne Unit #2 Gatineau QC J9H 7K8 Brent B. Olthius/ Megan Vis-Dunbar Tel: 604-891-2400 Fax: 604-647-4554 [email protected] Michael J. Sobkin Tel: 819-778-7794 Fax: 819-778-1740 [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, British Columbia Civil Liberties Agent for the Intervener, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association Association AND TO: COOPER & SANDLER 439 University Avenue Suite 1900 Toronto ON M5G 1Y8 SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP 397 Gladstone Avenue Suite 1 Ottawa ON K2P 0Y9 Jonathan A. Shime/ Megan Schwartzentruber Tel: 416-585-9191 Fax: 416-408-2372 [email protected] Marie-France Major Tel: 613-695-8855 ext. 102 Fax: 613-695-8580 [email protected] Counsel for the Interveners, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario Agent for the Interveners, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario AND TO: BENNET JONE LLP One First Canadian Place P.O. Box 130, Suite 3400 Toronto ON M5X 1A4 BENNET JONES LLP World Exchange Plaza 45 O’Connor Street, Suite 1900 Ottawa ON K1P 1A4 Robert W. Staley/ Ranjan K. Agarwal Tel: 416-777-4857 Fax: 416-863-1716 [email protected] Sheridan Scott Counsel for the Interveners, Christian Legal Fellowship, Catholic Civil Rights Leagues, REAL Women Of Canada Agent for the Interveners, Christian Legal Fellowship, Catholic Civil Rights Leagues, REAL Women of Canada Tel: 613-683-2302 Fax: 613-683-2323 [email protected] AND TO: ARVAY FINLEY 355 Burrard Street, Suite 1320 NORTON ROSE CANADA LLP 45 O’Connor Street Vancouver BC V6C 2G8 Ottawa ON K1P 1A4 Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C. Cheryl Milne Tel: 604-689-4421 Fax: 888-575-3281 [email protected] Martha A. Healey Tel: 613-780-8638 Fax: 613-230-5459 [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights Agent for the Intervener, David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights AND TO: EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP OF CANADA 130 Albert Street, Suite 1810 Ottawa ON K1P 5G4 SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP Georgialee A. Lang/ Donald Hutchinson Tel: 613-233-9868 Fax: 613-233-0301 [email protected] Eugene Meehan, Q.C. Counsel for the Intervener, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Agent for the Intervener, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada 397 Gladstone Avenue, Suite 100 Ottawa ON K2P 0Y9 Tel: 613-695-8855 ext. 101 Fax: 613-695-8580 [email protected] AND TO: DESROSIERS, JONCAS, MASSICOTTE 480, boul. St-Laurent, B-503 Montréal QC H2Y 3Y7 DAVEAU, BOURGEOIS, GAGNÉ, HÉBERT & ASSOCIÉES, SENCRL 867, boulevard Saint-René Ouest, Suite 8 Gatineau QC J8T 7X6 Walid Hijazi Tel : 514-397-9284 Fax : 514-397-9922 [email protected] Frédérick Langlois Tel: 819-243-2616 Fax : 819-243-2641 [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Institut Simone de Beauvior Agent for the Intervener, Institut Simone de Beauvior AND TO: FARADAY LAW 860 Manning Ave. Toronto ON M6G 2W8 BORDEN LADNER GERVIAS LLP World Exchange Centre 100 Queen Street, suite 100 Ottawa ON K1P 1J9 Fay Faraday Tel: 416-389-4399 Fax: 647-776-3147 [email protected] Nadia Effendi Tel: 613-237-5160 Fax: 613-230-8842 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Interveners, Native Women's Association of Canada, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes, Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle, Regroupement québécois des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, Vancouver Rape Relief Society, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres Agent for the Interveners, Native Women's Association of Canada, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes, Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle, Regroupement québécois des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, Vancouver Rape Relief Society, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres AND TO : PIVOT LEGAL LLP 121 Heatley Avenue Vancouver BC V6A 3E9 MCMILLAN LLP 50 O’Connor Street, Suite 300 Ottawa ON K1P 6L2 Katrina Pacey Tel: 604-255-9700 ext. 103 Fax: 604-622-5614 [email protected] Jeff W. Beedell Tel: 613-232-7171 ext. 122 Fax: 613-231-3191 [email protected] Counsel for the Interveners, Pivot Legal Society, Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence, PACE Society Agent for the Interveners, Pivot Legal Society, Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence, PACE Society AND TO: MCCARTHY TÉTRAULT LLP OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP 777 Dunsmuir Street, Suite 1300 Vancouver BC V7Y 1K2 340 Albert street, Suite 1900 Ottawa ON K1R 7Y6 Michael A. Feder/ Tammy Shoranick Tel: 604-643-5983 Fax : 604-622-5614 [email protected] [email protected] Patricia J. Wilson Counsel for the Intervener, Secretariat of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS Tel: 613-787-1009 Fax: 613-235-2867 [email protected] Agent for the Intervener, Secretariat of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS I TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE PART I – OVERVIEW…………………………………………………. 1 PART II – STATEMENT OF POSITION…………………………….. 2 PART III – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT…………………………. 2 1. The Section 15 Charter lens…………………………………... 2 2. Section 7………………………………………………………. 6 3. Section 2(b)…………………………………………………… 8 PART IV – POSITION ON COSTS……………………………………. 10 PART V – INTERVENER’S POSITION……………………………… 10 PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………. 11 PART VII – STATUTES AND REGULATIONS……………………… 12 1 1 PART I – OVERVIEW 1. Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto (“ALST”) is a non-profit organization that was incorporated to assist Aboriginal people gain access to, and control over, justice related issues that affect them. One of these issues is the criminalization of the public aspects of prostitution. 2. Prostitution takes many different forms. The evidence before the Application Judge was that 10 to 20 percent of prostitution is street-based sex work. 1 A subset of this category is “survival sex”. Survival sex is defined as a person choosing to engage in prostitution in a situation where they have very few or no other choices. 2 Survival sex workers are the “most vulnerable and most marginalized of all prostitutes” 3 and are the least likely to move off the street, no matter what legal regime is in place. 4 3. Street-based sex workers are not representative of the socio-economic make-up of Canada. Individuals who engage in these activities come from the most marginalized communities. Of particular relevance to ALST is the uncontradicted fact that a disproportionate number of streetbased sex workers, including those engaging in survival sex, are Aboriginal. 5 For this reason, ALST will be making specific reference to both of these groups in its factum. 4. This Court has been clear that s. 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms 6 provides an interpretative lens that must be used when assessing the extent to which Charter rights other than s. 15 have been violated. This interpretative lens is essential to properly understand the issues raised by this appeal. 1 Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186 at para 318 [Bedford ONCA], in Appellants’ Record vol 2, Tab 7 [AR]. 2 Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 ONSC 4264 [Bedford ONSC], in AR vol 1, Tab 3 (Evidence, Affidavit of Dr J Lowman, 3 April 2007) [Lowman Affidavit] in Joint Application Record [JAR], vol 15, Tab 15, at 4146-4147. 3 Bedford ONCA, supra note 1 at para 318, in AR vol 2, Tab 7. 4 Ibid. 5 Forsaken: The Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, The Women, Their Lives and the Framework of Inquiry: Setting the Context for Understanding and Change, vol 1 (British Columbia: Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, 2012) at 97 [Oppal Report], in Intervener’s Book of Authorities, Tab 12 [IBOA]; Lowman Affidavit in JAR, vol 15, Tab 51, at 4162 at para 33; Pivot Legal Society, Beyond Decriminalization: Sex Work, Human Rights and a New Framework for Law Reform (Vancouver: Pivot Legal Society, 2006) in JAR, vol 19, Tab 51(K), at 5253; Amnesty International Canada, Stolen Sisters: A Human Rights Response to Discrimination and Violence Against Indigenous Women in Canada (Ottawa: Amnesty International, 2004) [Stolen Sisters] in JAR, vol 7 Tab 29(C), at 1771-1772. 6 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. 2 PART II – STATEMENT OF POSITION 5. ALST’s intervention focuses on the constitutionality of s. 213(1)(c) Criminal Code. 7 It is ALST’s position that the section violates both s. 7 and s. 2(b) of the Charter and submits that the violations are not saved by s. 1 of the Charter. ALST submits that the Court of Appeal for Ontario (“OCA”) correctly determined the constitutionality of ss. 210 and 212(1)(j). 6. ALST relies on the discussion of the relevant findings of fact set out in the Respondents’ Factum. PART III – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT 1. The Section 15 Charter lens 7. The s. 15 Charter guarantee of equality applies to and supports all other rights guaranteed by the Charter. 8 Unless this Honourable Court interprets ss. 7 and 2(b) of the Charter through the lens of equality found in s. 15, 9 it will overlook the principles of equality as they relate to Aboriginal women and men who are engaged in street-based sex work. To properly consider the issues in this appeal it is necessary to understand why Aboriginal people are over-represented as street-based sex workers, including those engaged in survival sex; what risks they face; and which groups in Canada are the most vulnerable to harms associated with street-based sex work. 10 7 Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 s 213(1)(c). Law Society of British Columbia v. Andrews, [1989] 1 SCR 143 at 185 (QL) at para 52, in IBOA, Tab 2. 9 R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697 at 335 (QL) at para 75 [Keegstra], in IBOA, Tab 7; R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 SCR 411 (QL) at paras 128-129, in IBOA, Tab 8; R. v. Mills, [1999] 3 SCR 668 (QL) at para 21, in IBOA, Tab 8; New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G(J), [1999] 3 SCR 46 (QL) at para 115 (minority), in IBOA, Tab 3. 10 As the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the members of the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws agreed: the existing laws on prostitution are unequally applied, enabling a “two tiered sex trade to emerge [where] more expensive licensed off-street prostitutes operate with virtual impunity,”273 while those already most vulnerable and marginalized—street-level prostitutes, particularly Aboriginal and transsexual/transgendered persons, as well as drug addicts—are routinely arrested. House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, The Challenge of Change: A Study of Canada’s Criminal Prostitution Laws (December 2006) at 86 [The Challenge of Change], citing Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Prostitution, Report and Recommendations in respect of Legislation, Policy and Practices Concerning Prostitution-Related Activities (December 1998) at 65 [FPT Working Group 1998 Report]. 8 3 A. Why Aboriginal People are Over-Represented as Street-based Sex Workers 8. The risks and dangers attendant with street-based sex work and survival sex hardly make it a career choice that many individuals would seek out. This makes it all the more important to understand the reasons why there is a disproportionate involvement of Aboriginal women and men in this activity. Study after study conclude that the most cogent explanation is that the impacts of colonialism have pushed many Aboriginal people to the extreme margins of society, and it is at those margins that we find those engaged in street-based sex work and survival sex. 11 9. Colonialism, in the context of the situation of Aboriginal people in Canada, refers to state policies that were adopted with the specific purpose of attempting to destroy Aboriginal people as a people. These laws and policies are significant because “[t]he long-term impact of these colonialist policies continues to be keenly seen and felt by the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples in nearly every measured indicator of social and physical suffering in Canada”. 12 In R. v. Ipeelee this Court stated: To be clear, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and of course higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples. 13 10. The findings by this Court in Ipeelee are relevant to the matters raised in this case because the legislation being challenged is criminal law. Sadly, involvement with the criminal justice system is not the most severe or negative outcome that most Aboriginal sex workers experience. 11. In Forsaken: The Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry (which was not available to the courts below) the Honourable Wally T. Oppal, Q.C. directly linked the involvement of Aboriginal people in street-based sex work to their experience of colonialism: The over-representation of Aboriginal women within the women who disappeared from the DTES must be understood within the larger context of the legacy of colonialism in Canada—a legacy of racism, colossal neglect, violence and abuse. I use the term Stolen Sisters, supra note 5 in JAR, vol 7, Tab 29(C), at 1762; Office of the Correctional Investigator, Backgrounder: Aboriginal Inmates, online: Office of the Correctional Investigator <http://ocibec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/annrpt/annrpt20052006info-eng.aspx>, in JAR, vol 7, Tab 29(E), at 1824; Public Health Agency of Canada, Population-Specific HIV/AIDS Status Report: Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010) ch 4 at 3, 12, 20, online: Public Health Agency of Canada <http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aidssida/publication/ps-pd/aboriginal-autochtones/pdf/pshasrap-revspda-eng.pdf>; Oppal Report, vol 1, supra note 5 at 94-97, in IBOA, Tab 12. 12 Oppal Report, vol 1, supra note 5 at 96, in IBOA, Tab 12 citing Vancouver/Richmond Health Board, Healing Ways: Aboriginal Health and Service Review (Vancouver: Vancouver/Richmond Health Board, 1999). 13 R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 at para 60 [Ipeelee], in IBOA, Tab 6. See also Ipeelee at para 71. 11 4 colonialism as a global descriptor for the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and successive governments in Canada. 14 B. The Risk of Violence 12. The record in this case makes it clear that those involved in street-level sex work are the most at risk of all sex workers for physical harm arising from prostitution. 15 A stark example is the case of Robert Pickton, where all 26 victims on the original indictment were young women who worked as prostitutes. Most were Aboriginal, and most were addicted to illegal drugs. 16 13. In the Oppal Report, Commissioner Oppal makes it clear that street-based sex workers are “at an extremely elevated risk for various forms of severe violence” including murder. 17 The report found that one of the reasons for this most tragic outcome was because the lives of streetbased sex workers, and in particular those of Aboriginal women, were simply not seen by police, government and policy makers as worthy of concern. He stated: It is imperative to recognize that these broader forces of marginalization and societal dismissal and abandonment of the women contributed to their vulnerability to become victims and shaped the police response to the women’s disappearances. 18 14. While it was outside the mandate of the Commission to consider the validity of the current prostitution laws, Commissioner Oppal also found that the “legal regime played an important role in shaping the relationship between the police and women” in the Downtown East Side of Vancouver. 19 15. Both the Appellants argue that sex trade workers are at risk of violence because of the behaviour of johns and pimps. 20 Placing the blame for the violence on these individuals mischaracterizes this as random acts of individualized violence, as opposed to violence that reflects and perpetuates the marginalization that has resulted from colonialism. 14 Oppal Report, vol 1, supra note 5 at 94, in IBOA, Tab 12, citing Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, Hearing Transcript (October 12, 2011) at 5-59. 15 Bedford ONSC, supra note 2 , (Evidence, Cross-Examination of Jim Morrissey, 29 July 2008) in JAR, vol 34, Tab 79 at 9814-9815; Statistics Canada, Juristat: Street Prostitution in Canada, vol 17, No 2 (Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 1997) at 8, in JAR, vol 86, Tab 166, at 26236; Bedford ONSC, supra note 2 (Evidence, Affidavit of Darlene Maurganne Mooney, 28 March 2007) in JAR, vol 7, Tab 29, at 1690 at para 17; Department of Justice Canada, Violence against Persons who Prostitute: The Experience in British Columbia by John Lowman & J Fraser (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 1995) in JAR, vol 18, Tab 51(H), at 4934-4935 [Lowman & Fraser]. 16 R. v. Pickton, 2009 BCCA 300, aff’d at 2010 SCC 32, in IBOA, Tab 10. 17 Oppal Report, vol 1, supra note 5 at 104, in IBOA, Tab 12, citing Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, Hearing Exhibit 9 at 75, and also citing Lowman & Fraser, supra note 15. 18 Oppal Report, vol 1, supra note 5 at 112, in IBOA, Tab 12; see also R. v. Golden, [2001] SCC 83 at para 83. 19 Oppal Report, vol 1, supra note 5 at 100, in IBOA, Tab 12. 20 Memorandum of Argument of the Appellant, The Attorney General of Canada, at paras 2, 9; Factum of the Appellant, The Attorney General of Ontario, at para 7. 5 16. It is important that we not see Aboriginal people involved in survival sex as simply victims doomed to a life of addiction and early death, whether at the hands of others or due to the inherent consequences of the life that they live. Those who leave survival sex do so through their own resilience and with the help of Aboriginal communities and social service agencies. They can go on to provide for themselves and their families through other means. 21 However, what must be understood in the context of this case is that the communication prohibitions found in the Criminal Code make it harder to leave survival sex. 22 C. Who is “vulnerable”? 17. It is important to consider the different situations of the two groups that were characterized by the OCA in this case as “vulnerable”. First, when discussing the communication provisions of the Criminal Code, the majority of the Court described “[r]esidents of vulnerable neighbourhoods” who dealt with “the harms associated with street prostitution”. 23 Then, at para. 318, the Court used the same word, saying, “[t]hese ‘survival sex workers’ are likely to be the most vulnerable and most marginalized of all prostitutes”. 18. Those who live and work in areas where there is a significant amount of street prostitution undoubtedly suffer from some of the negative effects that come with this activity. This Court found in the Prostitution Reference, that those effects included “street congestion and noise, oral harassment of non-participants and general detrimental effects on passers-by or bystanders, especially children”. 24 However, the vulnerability of these neighbourhoods to harms associated with street-based sex work cannot in any way be compared to the harms faced by sex workers and those engaged in survival sex. Inconvenience and discomfort are not the same as dealing with what are essentially life and death decisions on a daily basis. 21 Living in Community, Balancing Perspectives in Vancouver's Sex Industry: Draft Action Plan (Vancouver: Living in Community, 2006) in JAR, vol 5, Tab 22(B), at 1096; Prostitutes Empowerment, Education and Resource Society, Dispelling Myths and Understanding Realities: Working Conditions, Health Status, and Exiting Experiences of Sex Workers by Cecilia Benoit & Alison Millar (October 2001) [Benoit & Millar], in JAR, vol 13, Tab 48 (B), at 3544-3545; Bedford ONSC, supra note 2 (Evidence, Affidavit of Jody Paterson, 12 April 2007) in JAR, vol 7, Tab 30, at 1834 at para 3. 22 There are at least two reasons why the communication prohibition negatively affects the ability of people who want to stop participating in street-based sex work to do so. First, because sex-workers are less likely to go to the police when they are victims of violent crime, they are more likely to be caught in a cycle of violence without the protection or support of the police or the criminal justice system. See Lowman Affidavit in JAR, vol 15, Tab 15, at 4157-4158 at paras 27-28, at 4162-4164, at 4169 at para 44; Oppal Report, vol 1, supra note 5 at 107-111. Second, many street-based sex workers incur criminal records which often makes obtaining other employment more difficult. See Benoit & Millar, supra note 21, in JAR, vol 13, Tab 48(B), at 3548. 23 Bedford ONCA, supra note 1 at para 289. 24 Reference re ss 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man), [1990] 1 SCR 1123 at 1135, (QL) at para 2 [Prostitution Reference], in Book of Authorities of the Appellant, Attorney General of Canada at Tab 55 [ABOA]. 6 2. Section 7 A. Section 7 Right to Life 19. ALST submits that the right to life protected by s. 7 is engaged in this case. The evidence in the record 25 and the findings of the OCA demonstrate that street-based sex workers use screening techniques as a tool to keep themselves safe and that s. 213(1)(c) limits their ability to do so. 26 Since one of the risks street-based sex workers are trying to prevent is murder, it is clear that the law trenches on their s. 7 protection to the right to life. B. Gross Disproportionality 20. Whether or not the s. 7 violations comport with the principles of fundamental justice requires the court to engage in a balancing process. One part of this inquiry is to determine if there is gross disproportionality between the impact of the laws on the life, liberty and security interests of those making the claim and the objects of the legislation. It is hard to see how the understandable desire to live in a neighbourhood free from some of the discomforts occasioned by street-based sex work can be balanced against the very lives of those people engaged in that behaviour. 27 Applying the reasoning of this Court in Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 28 which dealt with a similar group of marginalized people, it is clear that, as in PHS, there is a gross disproportionality between the breach and the objective in the case at bar. 21. The majority of the OCA in the case at bar reached a different, and ALST submits, incorrect, conclusion. In considering the balancing process required by s. 7, the majority found at para. 321: The evidence suggests—and the submissions of many of the interveners reinforce—that poverty, addiction, gender, race and age are the primary sources of survival sex workers’ marginalization. With that marginalization comes much of the risk associated with street prostitution. For the reasons we have given, we are not persuaded that the communicating provision is a dominant, or even a significant, factor among the many social, economic, personal and cultural factors that combine to place survival sex workers at significant risk on the street. 25 The Challenge of Change, supra note 10 in JAR, vol 9, Tab 37, at 2467-2470. Bedford ONCA, supra note 1 at para 134 (majority), at paras 348, 352 (dissent); Oppal Report, vol 1, supra note 5 at 110. 27 Bedford ONCA, supra note 1 in AR, vol 2, Tab 7, at para 347. 28 Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44 at para 133 [PHS], in ABOA at Tab 8. 26 7 22. It is disingenuous to look upon the state action that grounds the s. 7 claim in this case as simply the enactment of s. 213(1)(c). To view the issue in this narrow light obscures the much larger role of the state. While it is true that those who engage in survival sex have made a choice to do so, it is equally true that the range of choices available to them is severely constrained as the result of government action. In Ipeelee, this Court held that in relation to Aboriginal offenders, “… the reality is that their constrained circumstances may diminish their moral culpability”. 29 23. The crucial element missing from the OCA’s analysis is the application of the s. 15 lens and thus the contextual factors discussed earlier in the factum. What is it that contributes to the marginalization of Aboriginal women and men so that they are disproportionately overrepresented among those people who engage in survival sex and who die while so engaged? It is, as this court found in Ipeelee, the impact of colonialism. 30 As was pointed out by Commissioner Oppal, quoting Professor Lowman: Survival sex is driven by poverty and addiction. In the DTES poverty and addiction reflect and are amplified by the effects of the colonization of Aboriginal people and the destruction of their culture. In a legal sense survival sex workers do “choose” to prostitute, but they make that choice in a set of social conditions they did not choose. 31 24. It is therefore submitted that in establishing gross disproportionality in the case at bar, this Court must cast its eyes beyond the specific words of s. 213(1)(c) and look at the responsibility of the state for the parlous situation faced by street-based sex workers and those engaged in survival sex. To allow the state to shed its responsibility for the marginalization of these Aboriginal people and thus allow the continued violations of the life, liberty and security of those individuals is to further perpetuate the legacy of colonialism. This outcome cannot be consistent with the protections of s. 7. 29 Ipeelee, supra note 13, in IBOA, Tab 6. Ibid. 31 Oppal Report, vol 1, supra note 5 at 100-101, in IBOA, Tab 12, citing Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, Hearing Exhibit 3 at 15. 30 8 3. Section 2(b) A. Freedom of Expression 25. There is no question that the communication prohibition in the Criminal Code violates s. 2(b) of the Charter. 32 The issue in this appeal is whether or not the violation can be justified under s. 1. 26. We agree with the Respondents that the Application Judge did not err when she determined that the balancing test under s. 1 in relation to the prohibition on communication should be revisited. 33 This is because the evidence accepted by the Application Judge and in both decisions at the OCA recognizes that when sex workers and potential customers communicate, more than mere commercial interests are at stake. Rather, sex workers screen customers for issues of personal safety and gather information used to form the basis of the consent required for sexual acts. 34 Therefore, there is no question that the communications interests engaged in this case go to the core of freedom of expression. B. Is the Infringement Justified under Section 1? 27. The pressing and substantial objective that the communication prohibition is meant to address was clearly articulated in the majority decision of the Prostitution Reference, set out at paragraph 18 of our factum. 35 28. In considering the questions of rational connection and minimal impairment that are part of the s. 1 analysis, should any deference be owed the decision of Parliament? There are two reasons why this is not a case where deference is owed as in Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General) where the state weighed the interests of competing groups and intervened to protect the interests of the most vulnerable. 36 29. First, in this case we are dealing with criminal law, where the state is the singular antagonist and where the consequence of the violation of the law is a criminal conviction and often the imprisonment of offenders. 37 Second, the law does not attempt to balance the interests of competing groups in favour of the truly vulnerable—street sex workers and those engaged in 32 Bedford ONCA, supra note 1 at para 72, in AR, vol 2, Tab 7. Factum of the Appellants on Cross-Appeal, Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott at para 40, [App Factum, Cross-Appeal]. 34 Bedford ONSC, supra note 2 at para 83, 460, 461, in AR vol 1, Tab 3; Bedford ONCA, supra note 1, at paras 134, 313, 315 (majority), at paras 315, 348, 352 (dissent), in AR, vol 2, Tab 7. 35 Prostitution Reference, supra note 24, in ABOA at Tab 55. 36 Irwin Toy Ltd v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927 at 989 (QL) at para 74, in IBOA, Tab 1. 37 Ibid at 994 (QL) at para 80, in IBOA, Tab 1. 33 9 survival sex. Rather, it further tips the balance towards those who are more privileged. As a result, the state must be able to show that it meets the elements of the s. 1 test in its most robust form. 30. This case is different from other decisions of this Court that gave deference to Parliament when criminal laws were found to violate the provisions of s. 2(b) such as R. v. Keegstra, 38 R. v. Butler 39 and R. v. Sharpe 40 for two reasons. First, in all of those cases the speech interests were found to be low-value. 41 In this case, as noted above and found by the Application Judge, the speech interest here goes to the core of the s. 2(b) guarantee. Second, in all three cases the legislation sought to protect the vulnerable: In Keegstra the targets of hate speech as opposed to the hate-monger; 42 in Butler, women as the object of pornography as opposed to the person selling pornography; 43 and in Sharpe, children as opposed to consumers of child pornography. 44 As discussed earlier in this factum, there is no doubt that as between residents of communities where street-based prostitution may take place and street-based sex workers, particularly those engaged in survival sex, it is the latter group who are the most vulnerable. 31. With respect to rational connection, we agree with the Appellants on the Cross-Appeal that it is not enough for the state to show that they believed that the impugned law would be able to accomplish the objectives it was intended to address. 45 This is particularly the case when subsequent Parliamentary studies showed the law was not accomplishing what it set out to do. 46 32. It is submitted that the evidence is clear that the impact of the communication prohibition has not prevented the nuisance associated with street-based sex work, but rather just displaced the activity from one neighbourhood to another. 47 This displacement, which is largely carried out 38 Keegstra, supra note 9, in IBOA, Tab 7. R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 SCR 452, in IBOA, Tab 4 [Butler]. 40 R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2, in IBOA, Tab 11 [Sharpe]. 41 Keegstra, supra note 9 at para 86, in IBOA, Tab 7; Butler, supra note 39 at 500 (QL) at para 97, in IBOA, Tab 4; Sharpe, ibid at para 220, in IBOA, Tab 11. 42 Keegstra, supra note 9 at 746 (QL) at para 61, at 758 (QL) at para 80, in IBOA, Tab 7. 43 Butler, supra note 39 at 493 (QL) at para 82, at 493-494 (QL) at para 83, at 496-497 (QL) at para 88, in IBOA, Tab 4. 44 Sharpe, supra note 40 at para 194, in IBOA, Tab 11. 45 App Factum, Cross Appeal, supra note 33. 46 See: Department of Justice Canada, Street Prostitution: Assessing the Impact of the Law Synthesis Report (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 1989), in JAR, vol 23, Tab 53(F), at 6630; Department of Justice Canada, Victimization of Prostitutes in Calgary and Winnipeg by Augustine Brannigan (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 1994), in JAR, vol 8, Tab 34, at 2134; FPT Working Group 1998 Report, supra note 10, in JAR, vol 79, Tab 160 at 23924; The Challenge of Change, supra note 10 in JAR, vol 9, Tab 37(F), at 2400. 47 FPT Working Group 1998 Report, supra note 10, in JAR, vol 79, Tab 160 at 23862, 23899, 23926, 23922. 39 11 PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Authorities Jurisprudence Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44 Irwin Toy Ltd v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927 Law Society of British Columbia v. Andrews, [1989] 1 SCR 143 New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G (J), 1999 3 SCR 46 R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 SCR 452 R. v. Golden, [2001] 3 SCR 679 R. v. Ipeelee, [2012] 1 SCR 433 R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697 R. v. Mills, [1999] 3 SCR 668 R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 SCR 411 R. v. Pickton, 2009 BCCA 300 R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 SCR 45 Reference re: ss 193 and 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 SCR 1123 Secondary Materials The Honourable Wally T Oppal, QC, Forsaken: The Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry (Victoria: Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, 2012) Public Health Agency of Canada, Population-Specific HIV/AIDS Status Report: Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010), online: Public Health Agency of Canada <http://www.phacaspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/ps-pd/aboriginal-autochtones/pdf/pshasraprevspda-eng.pdf>. Cited at: 20 28 7 7 30 13 9, 10, 23 7, 30 7 7 12 30 18, 27 5, 11, 13, 14, 23 8 12 PART VII – STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 1) Criminal Code of Canada, R.S., 1985, c. C-46, ss. 197, 210, 212(1)(j) and 212(3) 2) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2(b), 7, and 15, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 PARTIE VII PART VII PARTIE VII DISORDERLY HOUSES, GAMING AND MAISONS DE DÉSORDRE, JEUX ET PARIS BETTING INTERPRETATION DÉFINITIONS ET INTERPRÉTATION Definitions Définitions 197. (1) In this Part, 197. (1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente partie. « maison de débauche » “common bawdy-house” “common bawdy-house” means a place that is (a) kept or occupied, or (b) resorted to by one or more persons for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency; Keeping common bawdyhouse 210. (1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. 210. (1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable « maison de débauche » “common bawdy-house” « maison de débauche » Local qui, selon le cas : a) est tenu ou occupé; b) est fréquenté par une ou plusieurs personnes, à des fins de prostitution ou pour la pratique d’actes d’indécence. Tenue d’une maison de débauche 210. (1) Est coupable d’un acte criminel et passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de deux ans quiconque tient une maison de débauche. Propriétaire, habitant, etc. 13 (2) Est coupable d’une infraction punissable sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire quiconque, selon le cas : a) habite une maison de débauche; b) est trouvé, sans excuse légitime, dans (2) Every one who une (a) is an inmate of a common bawdymaison de débauche; house, c) en qualité de propriétaire, locateur, (b) is found, without lawful excuse, in a occupant, common bawdy-house, or locataire, agent ou ayant autrement la (c) as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, charge ou le contrôle d’un local, permet occupier, sciemment que ce local ou une partie du agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the local soit loué ou employé aux fins de maison place or any part thereof to be let or used de débauche. for the purposes of a common bawdy-house, is guilty of an offence punishable on Le propriétaire summary doit être avisé de conviction. la déclaration de culpabilité Notice of conviction to be (3) Lorsqu’une personne est déclarée served on owner coupable d’une infraction visée au paragraphe (1), (3) Where a person is convicted of an le tribunal fait signifier un avis de la offence déclaration under subsection (1), the court shall de culpabilité au propriétaire ou locateur cause a notice of the conviction to be du lieu à l’égard duquel la personne est served on the owner, landlord or lessor of the place in déclarée coupable, ou à son agent, et l’avis doit respect contenir une déclaration portant qu’il est of which the person is convicted or his signifié agent, and the notice shall contain a selon le présent article. statement to the effect that it is being served pursuant Devoir du to propriétaire sur this section. réception de l’avis Duty of landlord on notice (4) Lorsqu’une personne à laquelle un avis est signifié en vertu du paragraphe (3) (4) Where a person on whom a notice is served under subsection (3) fails forthwith n’exerce pas immédiatement tout droit qu’elle peut to avoir exercise any right he may have to offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. 14 determine the tenancy or right of occupation of the person so convicted, and thereafter any person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) in respect of the same premises, the person on whom the notice was served shall be deemed to have committed an offence under subsection (1) unless he proves that he has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the recurrence of the offence. R.S., c. C-34, s. 193. de résilier la location ou de mettre fin au droit d’occupation que possède la personne ainsi déclarée coupable, et que, par la suite, un individu est déclaré coupable d’une infraction visée au paragraphe (1) à l’égard du même local, la personne à qui l’avis a été signifié est censée avoir commis une infraction visée au paragraphe (1), à moins qu’elle ne prouve qu’elle a pris toutes les mesures raisonnables pour empêcher le renouvellement de l’infraction. S.R., ch. C-34, art. 193. Procuring 212. (1) Every one who (a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada, (b) inveigles or entices a person who is not a prostitute to a common bawdy-house for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse or prostitution, (c) knowingly conceals a person in a common bawdy-house, (d) procures or attempts to procure a person to become, whether in or out of Canada, a prostitute, (e) procures or attempts to procure a person to leave the usual place of abode of that person in Canada, if that place is not a common bawdy-house, with intent that the person may become an inmate or frequenter of a common bawdy-house, whether in or out of Proxénétisme 212. (1) Est coupable d’un acte criminel et passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de dix ans quiconque, selon le cas : a) induit, tente d’induire ou sollicite une personne à avoir des rapports sexuels illicites avec une autre personne, soit au Canada, soit à l’étranger; b) attire ou entraîne une personne qui n’est pas prostituée vers une maison de débauche aux fins de rapports sexuels illicites ou de prostitution; c) sciemment cache une personne dans une maison de débauche; d) induit ou tente d’induire une personne à se prostituer, soit au Canada, soit à l’étranger; e) induit ou tente d’induire une personne à abandonner son lieu ordinaire de résidence au Canada, lorsque ce lieu n’est pas une maison de débauche, avec l’intention de lui faire 15 Canada, (f) on the arrival of a person in Canada, directs or causes that person to be directed or takes or causes that person to be taken, to a common bawdy-house, (g) procures a person to enter or leave Canada, for the purpose of prostitution, (h) for the purposes of gain, exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person in such manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting or compelling that person to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally, (i) applies or administers to a person or causes that person to take any drug, intoxicating liquor, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower that person in order thereby to enable any person to have illicit sexual intercourse with that person, or (j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. Presumption habiter une maison de débauche ou pour qu’elle fréquente une maison de débauche, au Canada ou à l’étranger; f) à l’arrivée d’une personne au Canada, la dirige ou la fait diriger vers une maison de débauche, l’y amène ou l’y fait conduire; g) induit une personne à venir au Canada ou à quitter le Canada pour se livrer à la prostitution; h) aux fins de lucre, exerce un contrôle, une direction ou une influence sur les mouvements d’une personne de façon à démontrer qu’il l’aide, l’encourage ou la force à s’adonner ou à se livrer à la prostitution avec une personne en particulier ou d’une manière générale; i) applique ou administre, ou fait prendre, à une personne, toute drogue, liqueur enivrante, matière ou chose, avec l’intention de la stupéfier ou de la subjuguer de manière à permettre à quelqu’un d’avoir avec elle des rapports sexuels illicites; j) vit entièrement ou en partie des produits de la prostitution d’une autre personne. 212. (3) Evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute or lives in a common bawdy-house is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person lives on the avails of prostitution, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(j) and subsections (2) and (2.1). (3) Pour l’application de l’alinéa (1)j) et des paragraphes (2) et (2.1), la preuve qu’une personne vit ou se trouve habituellement en compagnie d’un prostitué ou vit dans une maison de débauche constitue, sauf preuve contraire, la preuve qu’elle vit des produits de la prostitution. Offence in relation to prostitution Infraction se rattachant à la prostitution Présomption 16 213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view (a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle, (b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or (c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. Definition of “public place” (2) In this section, “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2(b), 7, and 15(1), Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 Rights and freedoms in Canada 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and 213. (1) Est coupable d’une infraction punissable sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire quiconque, dans un endroit soit public soit situé à la vue du public et dans le but de se livrer à la prostitution ou de retenir les services sexuels d’une personne qui s’y livre : a) soit arrête ou tente d’arrêter un véhicule à moteur; b) soit gêne la circulation des piétons ou des véhicules, ou l’entrée ou la sortie d’un lieu contigu à cet endroit; c) soit arrête ou tente d’arrêter une personne ou, de quelque manière que ce soit, communique ou tente de communiquer avec elle. Définition de « endroit public » (2) Au présent article, « endroit public » s’entend notamment de tout lieu auquel le public a accès de droit ou sur invitation, expresse ou implicite; y est assimilé tout véhicule à moteur situé dans un endroit soit public soit situé à la vue du public. Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, art. 1, 2(b), 7 et 15(1), partie I de la Loi Constitutionnelle de 1982, constituant l’annexe B de la Loi de 1982 sur le Canada (R.-U.), 1982, c 11 Droits et libertés au Canada 1. La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés garantit les droits et libertés qui y sont énoncés. Ils ne peuvent être restreints que par une règle de droit, dans des limites qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification puisse se démontrer dans le 17 democratic society. cadre d’une société libre et démocratique. FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS Fundamental freedoms 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; LIBERTÉS FONDAMENTALES Libertés fondamentales 2. Chacun a les libertés fondamentales suivantes : b) liberté de pensée, de croyance, d’opinion et d’expression, y compris la liberté de la presse et des autres moyens de communication; Vie, liberté et sécurité 7. Chacun a droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la sécurité de sa personne; il ne peut être porté atteinte à ce droit qu’en conformité avec les principes de justice fondamentale. Life, liberty and security of person 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Égalité devant la loi, égalité de bénéfice et protection égale de la loi 15. (1) La loi ne fait acception de personne et s’applique également à tous, et tous ont droit à la même protection et au même bénéfice de la loi, indépendamment de toute discrimination, notamment des discriminations fondées sur la race, l’origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe, l’âge ou les déficiences mentales ou physiques. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Appellant and TERRI-JEAN BEDFORD AMY LEBOVITCH, AND VALERIE SCOTT Court File No. 34788 Respondent Supreme Court of Canada On Appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICES OF TORONTO INC. Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto Inc. 415 Yonge Street, Suite 803 Toronto, Ontario M5B 2E7 Christa Big Canoe, LSUC # 53203N Emily Hill, LSUC # 46899Q Tel: (416) 408-4041 ext 228 Fax: (416) 408-4268 Counsel for the Intervener Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto Inc.
