{"id":1445,"date":"2013-10-23T19:45:34","date_gmt":"2013-10-23T19:45:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/?post_type=jfcy-in-the-courts&p=1445"},"modified":"2023-11-16T11:49:22","modified_gmt":"2023-11-16T16:49:22","slug":"r-v-banks-safestreetsact","status":"publish","type":"jfcy-in-the-courts","link":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/en\/cases-decisions\/r-v-banks-safestreetsact\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Banks [Challenge of the Safe Streets Act]"},"content":{"rendered":"

JFCY represented some young people who were ticketed under the\u00a0Safe Streets Act\u00a0for squeegeeing and panhandling.\u00a0 The defendants challenged the constitutionality of the\u00a0Safe Streets Act, 1999\u00a0(the\u00a0Act), on several grounds. The\u00a0Act\u00a0prohibits squeegeeing and \u201caggressive panhandling\u201d with penalties under the\u00a0Provincial Offences Act.\u00a0 On behalf of the defendants in the case, JFCY argued that the\u00a0Act\u00a0offends the Constitution in the following ways:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. the\u00a0Act\u00a0is essentially criminal law, which is not within the jurisdiction of the province.<\/li>\n
  2. the\u00a0Act\u00a0is a restriction on the\u00a0Charter\u00a0right to freedom of speech (s.2(b)), in that it prohibits many forms of asking for money.<\/li>\n
  3. the\u00a0Act\u00a0infringes the\u00a0Charter\u00a0right to life, liberty, and security of the person (s.7), because it prevents people from earning money to eat.<\/li>\n
  4. the\u00a0Act\u00a0infringes the\u00a0Charter\u00a0right to equality (s.15) because \u2018legitimate\u2019 soliciting of charities is exempted under the Act, while soliciting by the poor is made illegal.<\/li>\n
  5. the\u00a0Act\u00a0infringes the\u00a0Charter\u00a0right to be presumed innocent (11(d)), because the definition of \u201caggressive\u201d panhandling includes many activities that most people would not consider to be aggressive.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The hearing of the appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeal was held over two days in late February of 2006.\u00a0 The Court released its decision in which it upheld the constitutionality of the Act on\u00a0January 16, 2007. Our application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed on August 23, 2007.<\/p>\n

    JFCY factum<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

    Ontario Court of Appeal decision<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    JFCY represented some young people who were ticketed under the\u00a0Safe Streets Act\u00a0for squeegeeing and panhandling.\u00a0 The defendants challenged the constitutionality…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-1445","jfcy-in-the-courts","type-jfcy-in-the-courts","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/jfcy-in-the-courts\/1445","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/jfcy-in-the-courts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/jfcy-in-the-courts"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/jfcy-in-the-courts\/1445\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}