Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 12 The author identified himself as a concerned father and urged the other tenants to contact the CRHC to express their concerns over the marihuana smell. [22] On October 22, 2001, the petitioners wrote another letter to Ms. Joy of the CRHC. In the letter, they explained the steps that they were taking to minimize marihuana smoke in the building and complained about the CRHC's failure to take 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) action. The petitioners stated that they would not permit their door to be weather stripped, as they felt that this would decrease the ventilation in their suite. They concluded their letter by demanding, amongst other things, that the CRHC educate all residents of the complex on the medicinal use of marihuana, increase the security of their suite, compensate them for the cost of their air purification system and stop visits from the caretaker without a fixed appointment. [23] That evening, the petitioners received another anonymous handwritten note in their mailbox. It complained that the odour of marihuana emanating from the petitioners' suite was constant and intolerable. The author asked that Mr. Young either smoke on his patio or find an alternate medication. [24] The petitioners responded by sending a further letter to Ms. Joy of the CRHC on October 23, 2001, asking her to take action to stop the complaints which, in the petitioners'
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 13 words, were "causing [them] extreme upset in [their] lives and destroying the peace and quiet enjoyment of [their] apartment." [25] Further conversations took place between Mr. Young and Ms. Joy in the days that followed. On October 26, 2001, Mr. Young retained counsel who sent a letter to the CRHC, reiterating the petitioners' concerns. 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) The Signs [26] One point of contention between the petitioners and the CRHC concerned signs that the Youngs were displaying in their suite. The first sign, which the petitioners posted in their window, depicted a marihuana leaf and contained the words, "Liberate Medicinal Marijuana." The Youngs removed this sign some time in November after being advised by the CRHC that the posting of signs on windows was contrary to the terms of their tenancy agreement. [27] In early January, the petitioners erected a second sign on an easel in their living room. The sign contained the words "Marijuana is Medicine", written in lights, and was visible through the petitioners' window. When the petitioners did not comply with a written request to remove this sign, the CRHC served them with an eviction notice. The CRHC later
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 11: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 63 and 64:
Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
show all

Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?