Two appellants were charged with living on the avails of sex work under s. 212(1)(j) of the Criminal Code for conduct during the one-year suspension period following the Bedford declaration of invalidity.
The majority held that the Bedford suspended declaration of invalidity operated purely prospectively, meaning the law was valid during the suspension period and the appellants could be convicted for conduct committed during that period.
The majority reasoned that the purpose of the suspension — avoiding deregulation of sex work to protect vulnerable sex workers — would be frustrated by retroactive application.
The dissent concluded that the Bedford declaration had retroactive effect once the suspension expired, rendering s. 212(1)(j) void ab initio and precluding conviction.
The appeals were dismissed, with the appellants' convictions affirmed by the majority.
