Alan N. Young

The respondent, who operated a body rub parlour licensed by the City of Vaughan, was charged with contravening a municipal by-law governing the hours of operation of body rub parlours.

He challenged the constitutionality of the by-law, arguing it was ultra vires the municipality because it constituted criminal law.

A justice of the peace and the Ontario Court of Justice agreed, finding the provisions were criminal in pith and substance and invaded federal authority.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the pith and substance of the hours of operation provision was business licensing, falling within provincial authority over property and civil rights and licensing.

The court found the lower courts erred by focusing exclusively on extrinsic evidence while ignoring intrinsic evidence, and by failing to recognize that municipalities may legislate to suppress conditions conducive to crime when anchored in a valid provincial head of power.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to strike an application concerning post-conviction disclosure and Charter rights for convicted offenders who have served their sentences.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's reasons were inadequate and conclusory, failing to provide sufficient rationale for dismissing the motion to strike.

The court also found that the motion judge applied the "plain and obvious" test incorrectly to issues of standing and prematurity, which should have been subject to different principles.

The issues raised were deemed to be of public importance, satisfying the conjunctive test for leave to appeal under rule 62.02(4)(b).

The applicant sought a declaratory judgment affirming the Superior Court's jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Charter to order post-conviction disclosure for individuals claiming wrongful conviction.

The respondent, the Attorney General of Ontario, brought a motion to strike the application, arguing the applicant lacked standing, the application was premature, and it failed to meet the section 7 Charter test.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the respondent had not met the high threshold of demonstrating it was plain, obvious, and beyond doubt that the application could not succeed.

Current and former sex workers challenged three Criminal Code provisions prohibiting bawdy-houses, living on avails, and public communication for prostitution purposes.

The Court held the provisions deprived security of the person by materially increasing risks of violence and preventing safety-enhancing measures, and that the deprivations were not in accordance with fundamental justice due to gross disproportionality and overbreadth.

The Court affirmed that lower courts may revisit precedent when a new legal issue or significant evidentiary change is shown, and confirmed deference to trial findings on social and legislative facts absent palpable and overriding error.

Section 210 (as related to prostitution), section 212(1)(j), and section 213(1)(c) were declared unconstitutional.

Invalidity was suspended for one year to permit legislative response.