|
Charter - s.7 'Life'. R. v. Kloubakov
In R. v. Kloubakov (SCC, 2025) the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a criminal appeal, this from an Alberta CA ruling that allowed a Crown appeal against an Alberta QB decision in which "the trial judge held that these offences [SS: 'receiving a material benefit from sexual services and of procuring': CCC 286.2 and 286.3] prohibited the safety measures contemplated in Bedford [SS: Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford (SCC, 2013)] and therefore infringed s. 7 of the Charter".
Here the court considers the 'life' element of Charter s.7:[157] We first consider the right to life.
[158] The appellants suggest in passing that sex workers’ right to life under s. 7 of the Charter is engaged. They argue that when sex workers cannot take safety measures, such as working from fixed indoor locations or hiring third parties to provide safety services, the risk of violence to them and even the loss of their lives increases dramatically.
[159] We accept that the right to life under s. 7 is engaged by a law that “imposes death or an increased risk of death on a person, either directly or indirectly” (Carter, at para. 62). It is also undeniable that “[a] risk of such a deprivation suffices” (Canadian Council for Refugees, at para. 56, citing Carter, at para. 62, Malmo-Levine, at para. 89, and Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, at para. 27). At the same time, this Court has noted that “concerns about autonomy and quality of life have traditionally been treated as liberty and security rights” (Carter, at para. 62).
[160] The concerns about the risks of violence or even death faced by sex workers are serious and most troubling, but in this case, the consideration of such risks would duplicate the analysis of the security of the person under s. 7. The trial judge also made no finding that the PCEPA is linked causally to an increased risk of death. Finally, this issue has been raised squarely in Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform (at paras. 218, 248 and 499) based on a much fuller evidentiary record and is pending before the Ontario Court of Appeal. We therefore refrain from addressing this issue further.
|
