In particular, the areas that the court found to be of concern were that sex workers were not able to sell sex from fixed indoor locations. They had to keep moving around because the definition of bawdy house was such that if a place was used more than once, it became a bawdy house. Second, the offence of living on the avails of prostitution did not distinguish between exploitive conduct and non-exploitive conduct, so therefore people were not able to hire bodyguards or other people in order to protect them. Third, the breadth of the communicating offence, which was communicating in all circumstances, was prohibited, and denied them the ability to negotiate safer conditions.
On July 7th, 2014. See this statement in context.