Is the act of receiving a 'happy ending' illegal in Canada?

Question

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/massage-therapist-s-happy-endings-incident-spurs-federation-to-take-action-1.4659016

In the recording of the interaction at the Kirkland police detachment, the officer tells her that it is unlikely the man will be found, that the punishment would be minimal if he were ever convicted and that the expectation of "happy endings" comes along with the profession.

I was surprised to read this on a news article, because the law clearly states that it's illegal.

While happy endings are legal in Montreal, they are not provided by certified and licensed massage therapists who are closer to physiotherapists in the services they provide and who usually work out of athletic therapy clinics, gyms, and spas.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/05/08/opinion/happy-endings-not-part-job

So there are two articles that seems to suggest it's legal, while the law states the opposite.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/c36faq/

Purchasing sexual services and communicating in any place for that purpose is now a criminal offence for the first time in Canadian criminal law. A person convicted of this new offence may be sentenced to up to 5 years imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment, and 18 months if prosecuted by summary conviction. Mandatory minimum fines also apply, including higher mandatory minimum fines if the offence is committed in a public place that is or is next to parks, schools, religious institutions or places where children can reasonably be expected to be present. A person convicted of purchasing sexual services from a person under the age of 18 years may be sentenced to up to 10 years imprisonment. Mandatory minimum penalties of 6 months imprisonment for a first offence and one year for subsequent offences also apply.

The new purchasing offence applies to transactions that take place over the Internet, such as paying someone to provide a sexual service in front of a webcam.

A “sexual service” is a service that is sexual in nature and whose purpose is to sexually gratify the person who receives it. “Obtaining a sexual service for consideration” involves an agreement for a specific sexual service in return for payment or another kind of consideration, including drugs or alcohol. It doesn’t matter whether payment is made by the person who receives the sexual service or by another person.

Activities that amount to “obtaining a sexual service for consideration”, if a person pays for them, include: sexual intercourse; masturbation; oral sex; lap-dancing, which involves sitting in a person’s lap and simulating sexual intercourse; and, sado-masochistic activities, provided that the acts can be considered to be sexually stimulating or gratifying.

So which one is it?

Answer 1

The third link clarifies that purchasing sex is a crime, but selling it is not:

The new prostitution laws do not criminalize the sale of sexual services. They also protect those who sell their own sexual services from criminal liability for any part they may play in the prostitution offences that prohibit purchasing sexual services, advertising those services, receiving a material benefit from the prostitution of others or procuring others for the purpose of prostitution.

It also isn't unusual for a local law enforcement or prosecution agency to adopt a policy of not prosecuting an offense available under the law for certain circumstances. Perth, Australia had such a policy for many years and perhaps still does.

The first article makes clear that the particular police officer's statement in the case mentioned was inaccurate as an explanation of the current state of the law or local law enforcement policy, and reflected insensitivity and misconduct on the part of the police officer:

In the recording of the interaction at the Kirkland police detachment, the officer tells her that it is unlikely the man will be found, that the punishment would be minimal if he were ever convicted and that the expectation of "happy endings" comes along with the profession.

Cavaliere insisted she wanted to file a report and left the station with forms to fill out, but said the incident left her feeling unsupported and scared to return.

She did return the next day accompanied by her boss and file a report with a different officer the next day.

A Montreal police spokesperson said the officer's reaction was "sad" and "wrong," but does not reflect the service as a whole.

The second article is not open access, but appears to be a reaction to, and misinterpretation of, the same incident.

A comprehensive discussion of the somewhat complicated situation can be found at Wikipedia.