This law is very carefully tailored to target customers of sex workers. Sex workers themselves are only indirectly affected.
This is the main reason why the court challenge has failed. And it will probably fail in the Supreme Court too.
I think this law is unconstitutional on the grounds of freedom of expression, which is guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The government can’t make a blanket prohibition of a whole category of communication. Any such restriction needs to be tailored only to harmful cases, and it needs to exclude cases that cause no harm. And this law doesn’t do that. It makes a blanket prohibition, where the government doesn’t need to prove harm in the cases they prosecute.
That’s why this law is unconstitutional. People’s rights and freedoms can be restricted only in the most minimal way to prevent harm, and not any more than that.
And the people who need to challenge this law in court are the customers of sex workers. Because this law specifically targets the speech of customers and not of sex workers.
I think government lawyers knew that this law would be unconstitutional on the grounds of freedom of expression. But the government made this law anyway, in the hope that no customer of sex workers would want to drag their name through the mud by getting charged and then challenging it in court.
This is a sneaky way to violate people’s rights and freedoms in a seemingly legal way. Which isn’t surprising. The Canadian government has done this kind of things in the past with residential schools for the natives and other such stuff.