What is the effect of a judge's decision to strike down the living on the avails and communicating provisions of the Criminal Code?

The application judge declared that all three of the challenged provisions are unconstitutional. Applying the principles set down in Schachter v. Canada, 1992 CanLII 74 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679, [1992] S.C.J. No. 68, she struck down the living on the avails and communicating provisions (ss. 212(1)(j) and 213(1) (c)). She struck down the prohibition on bawdy-houses for the purpose of prostitution by striking the word "prostitution" from the definition of "common bawdy-house" in s. 197(1). This remedy did not affect the prohibition on bawdy-houses for "acts of indecency", as [page18 ]the respondents had not challenged this aspect of the law. It also left intact other, unchallenged provisions of the Criminal Code that reference common bawdy- houses for purposes of prostitution, such as the procuring and concealing offences in s. 212(1)(b), (c), (e) and (f). Stay of the application judge's decision