Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Goudge, Cronk and Epstein, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Citation: 2009 ONCA 669,(2009), 255 O.A.C. 21 (CA)
• Date: 10 September 2009

Bedford v. Can. (A.G.) (2009), 255 O.A.C. 21 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.041

Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott (applicants/respondents) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent/respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario (intervenor/respondent)

(C50823; 2009 ONCA 669)

Indexed As: Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Goudge, Cronk and Epstein, JJ.A.

September 22, 2009.

Summary:

The applicants sought a declaration that certain sections of the Criminal Code criminalizing activities related to prostitution violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Christian Legal Fellowship, REAL Women of Canada and Catholic Civil Rights League sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court (Civil Procedure Rules, 13.02).

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in a decision reported at [2009] O.T.C. Uned. F.09, dismissed the motion. The proposed intervenors appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted the motion.

Practice - Topic 681

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Persons who may apply - The applicants sought a declaration that certain sections of the Criminal Code criminalizing activities related to prostitution violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The Christian Legal Fellowship, REAL Women of Canada and Catholic Civil Rights League sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court (Civil Procedure Rules, 13.02) - The motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the proposed intervenors would not make a useful contribution to the resolution of any issue that needed to be determined - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the proposed intervenors' appeal and granted the motion - The intervenors' position was that the constitutionality of the challenged laws could be supported by the moral values of Canadian society - Contrary to the motion judge's finding, that position was clearly described - The applicants had indicated that the moral issue would be raised - The court concluded that the intervenors might be able to make a useful contribution to the application without causing injustice to the immediate parties.

Practice - Topic 682

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Interest in subject matter - [See Practice - Topic 681 ].

Cases Noticed:

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Dieleman (1993), 16 O.R.(3d) 32 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 2].

Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (1990), 74 O.R.(2d) 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

GEA Group AG v. Ventra Group Co. et al. (2009), 254 O.A.C. 198; 2009 ONCA 619, refd to. [para. 3].

Counsel:

Derek J. Bell, Ranjan K. Agarwal and Alexie S. Landry, for the appellants, Christian Legal Fellowship, REAL Women of Canada and Catholic Civil Rights League;

Ron Marzel, for the respondents, Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott;

Roy Lee and Michael H. Morris, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada;

Christine Bartlett Hughes, for the respondent, Attorney General of Ontario.

This appeal was heard on September 10, 2009, before Goudge, Cronk and Epstein, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who released the following decision on September 22, 2009.