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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 2 Introduction [1] Mr. Young suffers from multiple sclerosis. Mr. and Mrs. Young are legally exempted from the application of certain provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (the "CDSA") to permit them to grow marihuana so that Mr. Young may use it for the treatment of his medical condition. The Youngs have brought two separate petitions 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) before this court. They brought their first petition against the Saanich police (the "SPD") and the Capital Regional District (the "CRD") seeking constitutional remedies for alleged Charter breaches interfering with their right to grow and use marihuana ("Action 02/5145"). The petitioners contend that the breaches culminated in an improper attempt by their landlord to evict them from their rental unit in a social housing project solely because they grew, and Mr. Young used, marihuana. [2] The landlord is the Capital Region Housing Corporation (the "CRHC"), rather than the CRD, although the two entities are connected. The CRHC is a private company incorporated by the CRD as part of the latter's mandate to provide partially subsidized housing in the Capital Region. In August 2002, an arbitrator held that the landlord had established sufficient cause to terminate the tenancy because the smells associated
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 3 with the cultivation and use of marihuana were unreasonably disturbing and interfering with the lawful rights of other tenants contrary to the Residential Tenancy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 406 (the "RTA"). [3] The landlord’s subsequent application to the Residential Tenancy Branch for an order of possession was adjourned pending the outcome of the second proceeding before me. If 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) Mr. and Mrs. Young are unsuccessful in both Supreme Court proceedings, they will be required to move out of their home. [4] In October 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Young filed the second petition pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act (the "JRPA") to challenge the arbitrator's findings under the RTA ("Action 02/4528"). That proceeding is brought against the CRHC only. Although the petitioners raise a number of specific administrative law issues in that proceeding, I am not persuaded that there is any merit to those complaints. Instead, in my view, the only viable means of attack on the eviction would require a positive finding on the Charter claims raised in Action 02/5145. Such a finding might remove the necessary underpinnings for the exercise of statutory jurisdiction by the arbitrator, at the behest of the CRHC, provided that the landlord is itself a state actor subject to Charter scrutiny.
Page 1: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 5 and 6: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 53 and 54:
Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
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).

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?