29:
231:
If the purpose was to stop nuisances, why not prevent any two people from approaching each other? The court decided that what was occurring was that a municipality disapproved of prostitution, and was attempting to enact a criminal law in order to discourage it. The court was also concerned with the
209:
The language was quite broad: "No person shall be, or remain on a street, for the purpose of prostitution." The follow-up section stated that no person shall approach a person for the purposes of prostitution. There was nothing about communication or other specific act, and the penalties were much
224:
If a province or municipality may translate a direct attack on prostitution into street control through reliance on public nuisance, it may do the same with respect to trafficking in drugs. And, may it not, on the same view, seek to punish assaults that take place on city streets as an aspect of
194:
Lenore
Westendorp and a friend approached an undercover police officer on a street in Calgary and solicited him for sex. They were both arrested and charged under a municipal by-law that prohibited being on the street for the purpose of prostitution.
218:
Laskin C.J., writing for a unanimous Court, held that the law was ultra vires the province. Laskin found that the law was "colourable", as its true purpose was not to keep the streets safe but to control or punish prostitution. He held that:
167:
of the provincial constitutional authority. The decision surprised many legal scholars who considered it to be inconsistent with previous
Supreme Court cases where provincial laws of a moral nature were upheld under the provincial power (see
210:
higher than others mentioned in the same by-law. The stated basis of the bylaw was to facilitate the use of the streets, by avoiding the creation of crowds, both vehicular and pedestrian – in essence, to avoid a public nuisance.
235:
This case is seen as going against the grain of most case law in this area, where the court has struck down legislation formed on the basis of provincial power, holding that it was an attempt to intrude on criminal law power.
225:
street control! However desirable it may be for the municipality to control or prohibit prostitution, there has been an overreaching in the present case which offends the division of legislative powers.
232:
precedent that may be created by legislation of this type; were it to be allowed, then it could have broad-reaching consequences on the criminal code where cities could create duplicate laws.
163:. A unanimous Court found that a municipal by-law that prohibited standing in the street for the purpose of prostitution was in the nature of a criminal law prohibition and therefore
248:
201:
Westendorp appealed to the
Supreme Court on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional as it was criminal law and should only be legislated by the federal government.
160:
182:
176:
310:
305:
239:
Counsel for
Westendorp raised the Charter of Rights in submissions to the Court, but abandoned the Charter argument during the oral hearing.
320:
315:
170:
186:
was cited in argument to the
Supreme Court, although the Charter argument was ultimately abandoned during the hearing.
253:
117:
266:
156:
34:
274:
287:
28:
270:
121:
101:
299:
129:
125:
113:
105:
60:
164:
94:
109:
159:
on the scope of the federal
Parliament's criminal law power under
198:
At trial, Westendorp was found guilty under the by-law.
249:
List of
Supreme Court of Canada cases (Laskin Court)
54:
Lenore
Jacqueline Westendorp v Her Majesty The Queen
140:
135:
85:
77:
69:
59:
49:
42:
21:
8:
161:section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867
180:). This was also the first case where the
280:
183:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
177:Nova Scotia (Board of Censors) v McNeil
205:Constitutional challenge of the by-law
18:
155:, 1 S.C.R. 43 was a decision of the
7:
288:SCC Case Information - Docket 17071
14:
171:Canada (AG) v Montreal (City of)
27:
1:
311:Supreme Court of Canada cases
306:Canadian federalism case law
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
337:
321:Canadian criminal case law
254:Prostitution law in Canada
45:Judgment: January 25, 1983
43:Hearing: December 2, 1982
316:1983 in Canadian case law
90:
81:Westendorp appeal allowed
26:
290:Supreme Court of Canada
267:Supreme Court of Canada
157:Supreme Court of Canada
35:Supreme Court of Canada
214:Opinion of the Court
141:Unanimous reasons by
148:
147:
328:
291:
285:
122:Julien Chouinard
118:William McIntyre
99:Puisne Justices:
86:Court membership
31:
19:
336:
335:
331:
330:
329:
327:
326:
325:
296:
295:
294:
286:
282:
262:
245:
216:
207:
192:
97:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
334:
332:
324:
323:
318:
313:
308:
298:
297:
293:
292:
279:
278:
277:
261:
260:External links
258:
257:
256:
251:
244:
241:
229:
228:
215:
212:
206:
203:
191:
188:
152:Westendorp v R
146:
145:
142:
138:
137:
133:
132:
102:Roland Ritchie
92:Chief Justice:
88:
87:
83:
82:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
22:Westendorp v R
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
333:
322:
319:
317:
314:
312:
309:
307:
304:
303:
301:
289:
284:
281:
276:
272:
268:
265:Full text of
264:
263:
259:
255:
252:
250:
247:
246:
242:
240:
237:
233:
226:
222:
221:
220:
213:
211:
204:
202:
199:
196:
189:
187:
185:
184:
179:
178:
173:
172:
166:
162:
158:
154:
153:
143:
139:
136:Reasons given
134:
131:
130:Bertha Wilson
127:
126:Antonio Lamer
123:
119:
115:
114:Willard Estey
111:
107:
106:Brian Dickson
103:
100:
96:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
283:
269:decision at
238:
234:
230:
223:
217:
208:
200:
197:
193:
181:
175:
169:
151:
150:
149:
98:
91:
53:
33:
165:ultra vires
144:Laskin C.J.
95:Bora Laskin
65:1 S.C.R. 43
300:Categories
273: and
227:(p. 53–54)
190:Background
110:Jean Beetz
70:Docket No.
61:Citations
243:See also
174:, and
275:CanLII
78:Ruling
73:17071
271:LexUM
302::
128:,
124:,
120:,
116:,
112:,
108:,
104:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
