Bill C-36 Media Watchlist - you can help!
- Thread starter escapefromstress
- Start date
C36 Supreme Court Decision = BAD ?
decisions.scc-csc.ca
Someone with a more legal mind needs to interrupt this. From a quick read and a summary I saw, it seems bad for drivers and agencies. I believe Kloubakov was a driver. He lost his appeal, and his conviction was upheld. I haven't had time to research and refresh my memory on this case.
The only hope for agencies is the Liberty issue, which will have to be challenged if someone is convicted under c36 and wait many more years for the case to make its way up the chain, probably at great legal cost ? Hope I am wrong.
BREAKING: Supreme Court of Canada: Kloubakov v. R.
Held: "The appeal should be dismissed. … The convictions of the accused are affirmed."
“…neither the material benefit offence nor the procuring offence prohibits the safety measures contemplated in Bedford. As a result, the offences do not engage sex workers’ security of the person…”
“…the material benefit and procuring offences … recognize that third parties who profit from the sale of sexual services cause, perpetuate and exploit the harms of commercial sex trade.
“There is no requirement for factually exploitative conduct or for the profits to be excessive or unreasonable.
“… third parties such as receptionists, managers, or drivers employed by sex workers, who work to increase their safety, are not captured by the procuring offence…”
“By contrast, a commercial agency that recruits persons to sell sexual services, provides premises for transactions, advertises to potential purchasers, makes appointments, and collects agency fees would engage liability under the procuring offence…”
“…Such a commercial agency would be directly engaged in promoting the commodification of sexual services, contrary to the first aspect of the safety‐related purpose of the new offences.”
“As for the right to liberty, whether s. 7 of the Charter protects a fundamental right to sell sexual services as an aspect of an individual’s right to liberty amounts to a new constitutional issue.
“…In the instant case, it would be imprudent to decide this issue, as it was not considered in the courts below…”
decisions.scc-csc.ca
R. v. Kloubakov - SCC Cases
decisions.scc-csc.ca
Someone with a more legal mind needs to interrupt this. From a quick read and a summary I saw, it seems bad for drivers and agencies. I believe Kloubakov was a driver. He lost his appeal, and his conviction was upheld. I haven't had time to research and refresh my memory on this case.
The only hope for agencies is the Liberty issue, which will have to be challenged if someone is convicted under c36 and wait many more years for the case to make its way up the chain, probably at great legal cost ? Hope I am wrong.
BREAKING: Supreme Court of Canada: Kloubakov v. R.
Held: "The appeal should be dismissed. … The convictions of the accused are affirmed."
“…neither the material benefit offence nor the procuring offence prohibits the safety measures contemplated in Bedford. As a result, the offences do not engage sex workers’ security of the person…”
“…the material benefit and procuring offences … recognize that third parties who profit from the sale of sexual services cause, perpetuate and exploit the harms of commercial sex trade.
“There is no requirement for factually exploitative conduct or for the profits to be excessive or unreasonable.
“… third parties such as receptionists, managers, or drivers employed by sex workers, who work to increase their safety, are not captured by the procuring offence…”
“By contrast, a commercial agency that recruits persons to sell sexual services, provides premises for transactions, advertises to potential purchasers, makes appointments, and collects agency fees would engage liability under the procuring offence…”
“…Such a commercial agency would be directly engaged in promoting the commodification of sexual services, contrary to the first aspect of the safety‐related purpose of the new offences.”
“As for the right to liberty, whether s. 7 of the Charter protects a fundamental right to sell sexual services as an aspect of an individual’s right to liberty amounts to a new constitutional issue.
“…In the instant case, it would be imprudent to decide this issue, as it was not considered in the courts below…”
decisions.scc-csc.ca
Also see loss of challenge to C36C36 Supreme Court Decision = BAD ?
R. v. Kloubakov - SCC Cases
Someone with a more legal mind needs to interrupt this. From a quick read and a summary I saw, it seems bad for drivers and agencies. I believe Kloubakov was a driver. He lost his appeal, and his conviction was upheld. I haven't had time to research and refresh my memory on this case.
The only hope for agencies is the Liberty issue, which will have to be challenged if someone is convicted under c36 and wait many more years for the case to make its way up the chain, probably at great legal cost ? Hope I am wrong.
BREAKING: Supreme Court of Canada: Kloubakov v. R.
Held: "The appeal should be dismissed. … The convictions of the accused are affirmed."
“…neither the material benefit offence nor the procuring offence prohibits the safety measures contemplated in Bedford. As a result, the offences do not engage sex workers’ security of the person…”
“…the material benefit and procuring offences … recognize that third parties who profit from the sale of sexual services cause, perpetuate and exploit the harms of commercial sex trade.
“There is no requirement for factually exploitative conduct or for the profits to be excessive or unreasonable.
“… third parties such as receptionists, managers, or drivers employed by sex workers, who work to increase their safety, are not captured by the procuring offence…”
“By contrast, a commercial agency that recruits persons to sell sexual services, provides premises for transactions, advertises to potential purchasers, makes appointments, and collects agency fees would engage liability under the procuring offence…”
“…Such a commercial agency would be directly engaged in promoting the commodification of sexual services, contrary to the first aspect of the safety‐related purpose of the new offences.”
“As for the right to liberty, whether s. 7 of the Charter protects a fundamental right to sell sexual services as an aspect of an individual’s right to liberty amounts to a new constitutional issue.
“…In the instant case, it would be imprudent to decide this issue, as it was not considered in the courts below…”
decisions.scc-csc.ca
Supreme Court of Canada dismisses constitutional challenge of sex-work law
Court ruling upholds convictions of two men convicted of criminal offences in Alberta
www.theglobeandmail.com
Similar threads
