A lower court judge found that laws against keeping a bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade were 'contributing to the danger faced by prostitutes.' (Reuters)

Giving in to speculation that Canada will be plunged into an unchecked social experiment in prostitution if a landmark court ruling stands means turning a blind eye to violence against sex-trade workers, court heard Monday.

It's now up to an Ontario Court of Appeal judge to decide whether to uphold a ruling that essentially decriminalizes prostitution or put it on hold to allow Parliament to craft stop-gap measures.

Ontario Superior Court judge Susan Himel in September struck down the province's laws against keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade. In her ruling, she said they were "contributing to the danger faced by prostitutes."

The judgment, however, was subject to a stay, during which the laws remain in place. But with the stay set to expire on Saturday, the federal and provincial governments are pleading with the court to extend it until a proper appeal can be heard.

Appeal court judge Marc Rosenberg has reserved his decision. He said he would try to issue a ruling by Saturday, but in case he cannot, Rosenberg extended the stay until his decision is released.

'Social experiment'

If no stay is granted, Canada will be plunged into a "social experiment unprecedented in this country," federal government lawyer Michael Morris told the court on Monday.

"It will profoundly and irreversibly alter the status quo," he said.

"[These laws] are at the heart of the regime chosen by Parliament to ... deter prostitution in Canada."

Without the laws, there would be "nothing" in the Criminal Code to help police crack down on activities such as human trafficking, exploitation or drug dealing, Morris said. Those comments brought a rebuke from the judge.

"We don't have 'nothing,' so let's talk about what we do have," Rosenberg said. "There's a whole host of legislation in place ... so, let's not overstate it."

Morris clarified, saying while there are alternative provisions, they are not effective substitutes for the laws that have been struck down.

Given the Superior Court's ruling that the laws contribute to the harm faced by prostitutes, a stay is "ethically problematic," said Alan Young, the lawyer who successfully argued to have the laws struck down.

"Granting a stay does serve as a perpetuation of violence," he said.

Expedited appeal proposed

A stay is not the answer, Young said. He instead proposed an expedited appeal. Morris said an appeal could be heard as early as June, but Young pushed for an even earlier date.

If the original ruling stands, a stay will have prevented sex workers from "taking rudimentary safety measures" that could save their lives while having no stay in place would only inconvenience the public for a time, Young said.

The federal government listed a litany of "likely" scenarios should Himel's ruling come into effect.

Removing the bawdy house law would likely lead to crimes such as human trafficking, prostitution of minors, extortion and assault going undetected, Ottawa argues. The Ontario government's arguments echo Ottawa's.

Doing away with the laws would result in more prostitutes being exploited by pimps, force police to "abandon all ongoing investigations" and "likely encourage the movement of prostitutes to Ontario from other jurisdictions," the provincial government said.

Sex-trade workers say removing the laws will allow them to work indoors, hire bodyguards and communicate with potential clients to determine if they would pose a threat.

A group of sex-trade workers in British Columbia has also launched a challenge of Canada's prostitution laws.