tender35 said:
The Criminal Code definition of a common bawdy-house does not discriminate as to who is paying for the room, or the rent on the unit, and beware that the "house" part is a bit of a misnomer - courts have ruled that common bawdy-houses can include anything from an automobile to an apartment to a private house. The trick is that the location has to be used for the purposes of prostitution.
?? The Criminal Code certainly does discriminate. See Ronnie's link to the Criminal Code, Section 210. The person owning or operating is charged with keeping a common bawdy-house. The SPs are charged as "inmates", and the customers as "found-ins". These are summary charges, which I believe could mean that these charges can be dismissed if the owner or operator is acquitted of the charges of keeping a common bawdy-house. You should check with someone who is a lawyer if you want to make sure.
Although it's not specifically mentioned in the definition, I think the place has to be proven to have been used, not just once, but repeatedly for the purpose of prostitution (or acts of indecency) to be considered a common bawdy-house.
tender35 said:
...police can sting johns in a one-on-one incall/outcall, regardless of where the meeting takes place, by having the john solicit the fake SP for sex...
No, that's not correct. Technically there has been no "soliciting" law in Canada since it was changed in the 1980s. Once again, see Ronnie's link to the Criminal Code. The relevant section is 213. It is
public communicating for the purpose of prostitution that violates section 213 -- that is, communicating in a
public place. A hotel room, inside your home, etc., is not a public place. The law applies mainly to street prostitution, although I've heard some claims it could be argued that it applies to bars, SCs, hotel lobbies, etc.
Your mere presence (without lawful excuse) inside a bawdy-house is enough for police to charge you with being a "found-in", if they want to charge you. You don't have to be caught doing anything.
And it is possible to have an outcall SP come to your home or hotel room without violating the Criminal Code. Police can charge agencies (or their employees) under Section 212, with procuring/living on the avails of prostitution, but this likely would not involve charges against the SPs or customers if they were participating only in outcalls.
Carla said:
...It is really a shame that the bawdy houses in Montreal have to take a form of hidden cheap apartment banks...
Yes. Some Australian states have changed their laws, which were previously very much like Canada's, to allow brothels. It allows the owners to spend money on the buildings, since there is no threat of them being closed or forced to move by police. See the photos of the rooms in Stiletto, a bordello in Sydney AUS.
http://australianescorts.com/board/showthread.php?t=3299