The judgment of Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ

One: Introduction – (0:00:15)

Two: Facts – (0:02:15)

Three: Legislative Framework – (0:03:32)

Five: Analysis – (0:04:52)

A: Section 15 – (0:04:54)

1: Guidance on the Section 15 sub 1 Framework – (0:09:22)

a: Preliminary Point About Substantive Equality – (0:09:26)

b: Step One – Proving the Law, on its Face or in its Impact, Creates or Contributes to a Distinction on the Basis of a Protected Ground – (0:10:00)

c: Step Two – Proving the Law Imposes Burdens or Denies Benefits in a Manner That Has the Effect of Reinforcing, Perpetuating, or Exacerbating Their Disadvantage – (0:16:19)

one: Evidentiary Burden – (0:16:30)

two: Legislative Context – (0:19:50)

three: The Scope of the State’s Obligations to Remedy Social Inequalities – (0:22:48)

2: Application to the Impugned Provisions – (0:23:29)

The reasons of Karakatsanis, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ – (0:32:10)

2: Application – (0:40:50)

a: Distinction on the Basis of Race – (0:40:53)

one: The Relationship Between Sections 718.2 sub e and 742.1, and the Gladue Framework – (0:41:45)

two: Restrictions on Conditional Sentences Imperil the Remedial Function of the Gladue Framework – (0:43:54)

b: Discrimination – (0:45:54)

one: The Provisions Reinforce, Perpetuate, and Exacerbate Systemic Discrimination – (0:46:19)

two: The Floodgates Argument – (0:49:38)

The judgment of Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Martin and Kasirer JJ.

Preamble – (0:00:17)

Analysis – (0:02:56)

Application – (0:30:26)

The reasons of Brown and Rowe JJ. – (0:49:58)

One: Introduction – (0:50:03)

Three: Analysis – (0:54:40)

A: Step One of the Section 15 Analysis – (0:54:42)

B: Step Two of the Section 15 Analysis – (1:05:32)

C: Practical Implications – (1:13:04)

Four: Conclusion – (1:31:17)

The reasons of McIntyre and Lamer JJ. (Dissenting in Part)

Preamble – (0:00:17)

The Concept of Equality – (0:03:09)

Discrimination – (0:19:19)

Relationship Between section 15 sub 1 and section 1 of the Charter – (0:26:05)

Approaches to section 15 sub 1 – (0:27:45)

The judgment of the Court

Preamble – (0:00:12)

D. The Second Question – Is section 68.1 sub 1 of the HTA Unconstitutional Because it Violates the Right to Security of the Person Under S 7 of the Charter? – (0:03:47)

(1) The governing principles: The Bedford framework – (0:04:21)

(2) The application of the governing principles from Bedford – (0:08:08)

(3) Conclusion on the application of section 7 of the Charter to the legislation – (0:11:18)

E. The Third Question – Does section 1 of the Charter Save the Legislation? – (0:13:01)

(1) Contextual considerations relating to safety regulation – (0:14:45)

(a) Safety regulation – (0:15:21)

(b) Risk assessment – (0:17:21)

(2) The constitutional scrutiny of safety regulations – (0:19:33)

(3) The application of the section 1 Charter analysis to the section 7 breach in this appeal – (0:21:19)

(a) Pressing and substantial objectives – (0:21:25)

(b) Rational connection – (0:21:58)

(c) Minimal impairment – (0:23:12)

(i) The government's regulatory approach is not unsound – (0:24:44)

(ii) The 105 km/h speed limit set for the limiter is not arbitrary – (0:26:16)

(d) The proportionality of the legislation's effects – (0:27:50)

(e) Conclusion on the section 1 Charter analysis – (0:30:55)

(4) Reflections on Bedford – (0:31:14)

One: Introduction – (0:00:10)

Two: Background – (0:02:20)

Six: Was the Trial Judge Bound by Rodriguez? – (0:16:32)

8: Section 7 – (0:20:13)

A: Does the Law Infringe the Right to Life, Liberty and Security of the Person? – (0:21:08)

1: Life – (0:21:13)

2: Liberty and Security of the Person – (0:24:53)

3: Summary on Section 7 – Life, Liberty and Security of the Person – (0:30:13)

B: The Principles of Fundamental Justice – (0:30:41)

1: Arbitrariness – (0:37:07)

2: Overbreadth – (0:37:50)

3: Gross Disproportionality – (0:40:37)

4: Parity – (0:42:14)

Ten: Section 1 – (0:43:03)

1: Rational Connection – (0:45:42)

2: Minimal Impairment – (0:47:02)

a: Canada’s Challenge to the Facts – (0:51:25)

c: The Feasibility of Safeguards and the Possibility of a Slippery Slope – (0:52:42)

3: Deleterious Effects and Salutary Benefits – (0:58:07)

The judgment of the Court

Preamble – (0:00:14)

One: The Case – (0:00:59)

Four: Discussion – (0:10:15)

A: Preliminary Issues – (0:10:40)

1: Revisiting the Prostitution Reference – (0:10:43)

2: Deference to the Application Judge’s Findings on Social and Legislative Facts – (0:15:46)

B: Section 7 Analysis – (0:21:11)

1: Is Security of the Person Engaged? – (0:21:37)

a: Sections 197 and 210 – Keeping a Common Bawdy-House – (0:22:45)

b: Section 212 sub 1 sub j – Living on the Avails of Prostitution – (0:26:09)

c: Section 213 sub 1 sub c- – Communicating in a Public Place – (0:27:18)

3: Principles of Fundamental Justice – (0:28:59)

a: The Applicable Norms – (0:29:03)

b: The Relationship Between Section 7 and Section 1 – (0:44:12)

4: Do the Impugned Laws Respect the Principles of Fundamental Justice? – (0:48:21)

a: Section 210 – The Bawdy-House Prohibition – (0:48:26)

one: The Object of the Provision – (0:48:30)

two: Compliance With the Principles of Fundamental Justice – (0:50:09)

b: Section 212 sub 1 sub j – Living on the Avails of Prostitution – (0:52:12)

one: The Object of the Provision – (0:52:17)

two: Compliance With the Principles of Fundamental Justice – (0:53:21)

c: Section 213 sub 1 sub c- – Communicating in Public for the Purposes of Prostitution – (0:56:23)

one: The Object of the Provision – (0:56:30)

two: Compliance With the Principles of Fundamental Justice – (0:58:32)

D: Are the Infringements Justified Under Section 1 of the Charter? – (1:04:03)

Five: Result and Remedy – (1:05:32)

The judgment of Dickson C.J. and Beetz, Chouinard, Lamer and Le Dain JJ.

Introduction – (0:00:17)

The Facts – (0:00:40)

The Legislation – (0:01:29)

Section 7 – (0:02:59)

Introduction – (0:03:01)

The Nature and Legitimacy of Constitutional Adjudication Under the Charter – (0:03:27)

The Principles of Fundamental Justice – (0:11:49)

The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major and Bastarache JJ.

One: Introduction – (0:00:19)

Two: Factual Background – (0:00:49)

B: Have the Respondent’s Section 7 Rights to Liberty and Security of the Person Been Violated by State-caused Delay in Human Rights Proceedings? – (0:02:15)

b: Applicability of Section 7 Outside the Criminal Context – (0:02:24)

c: Section 7 – General Principles – (0:03:46)

e: Security of the Person – (0:04:58)

1: Was the Harm to Mister Blencoe the Result of State-Caused Delay in the Human Rights Process? – (0:07:35)

2: Quality of the Interference – (0:18:49)

1: Dignity – (0:19:58)

2: State Interference with Psychological Integrity – (0:22:35)

f: Conclusion on Liberty and Security of the Person – (0:27:58)

The judgment of Lamer C.J. and Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Major and Binnie JJ.

Preamble – (0:00:21)

Factual Background – (0:02:06)

Issues – (0:04:23)

Analysis – (0:04:54)

Security of the Person – (0:04:56)