Client pays with NSF check.

[whitemoustache]

It's time for me to weigh in. Unlike some posters above, I have read Bill C36 and even printed a copy or two for ladies in the business. Offering sex for money is not illegal in Canada, but accepting the offer, paying money for sex, IS! An escort may even advertise her services. Third party advertising, like the late back page of Monday magazine, or the backpage website is also banned. Living off the avails is also an indictable offense, whereas supporting oneself is not. There is even a category of business license in the City of Victoria for escorts, and the Canada Revenue Agency has escort services listed under its employment categories.
Knowingly bouncing an NSF cheque is indictable under the False Pretences provision of a few laws, depending on the amount. To prove a criminal case for fraud, one must provide evidence that it was intentional. Fiona is right not to accept cheques for services that are perfectly legal

 

[felixthecat]

I dont thinknuts right .But others think differently.

Who can possibly think it was right, other than the assholes that commit those crimes? I hope some of them get charged criminally to send the message across.
The public opinion should be overwhelmingly on the SP side, whether they support or oppose the industry.

It's not clear what criminal charges would stick, but some should:
Sexual assault (since consent is invalid when obtained by fraud; this clause is open to interpretation);
Fraud, which includes obtaining a service by deception.

Ironically, the new laws that we hate so much would work like a charm. The intent of the laws was presumably to prevent exploitation of women. This is a poster case of exploitation when sexual services were obtained by deception with a promise of payment. Could be an easy conviction I think, which could carry up to 5 years jail time:
"286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty ..."

Re cheques, cancelling them after receiving sexual services is illegal. Consent is conditional, if conditions are changed after the fact, consent is no longer valid.

I personally agree, but I don't think Canadian justice system confirmed if it applies to a payment as a condition.

The Criminal Code mentions that consent for sexual acts can be considered void if obtained by fraud, but there are certainly some limits on what kind of deception qualifies as fraud in that clause. Historically, it covered deception about identity of the partner or about the nature of the act.
A recent discussion was about R. v. Hutchinson , which secured a sexual assault charge for poking holes in a condom. So non-consensual removal of condom, for example, easily fits under sexual assault in Canada.

Failure to pay, not so clear. I'm aware only of R. v. Linekar in the UK (1994), where the offender won his appeal against the rape conviction when he failed to pay. In the original trial, the jury voted 11-1 for the rape conviction, which should be an indication how the public see that behaviour.

 

[UhOh]

Dealing with people you don't know its cash in hand before merchandise is handed over. If selling something on craigslist you wouldn't accept a cheque from someone you've never met before. Even from someone you have met is a gamble.

 

[VanessainVictoria]

Calling it rape is a bit of a stretch but definitely a slimy tactic.

'
It's called rape by deception