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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 26 Recommendation: 73. It is recommended the complaint be dismissed under section 27(1)(c) which reads: 27(1) The commissioner of investigation and mediation may, at any time after a complaint is filed, dismiss all or part of the complaint if that commissioner determines that any of the following apply: (c) there is no reasonable basis to justify referring the complaint or that part of the complaint to the tribunal for a hearing. 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) [52] Upon receiving a copy of Ms. Down's report, the petitioners filed further submissions to the Commission. On May 6, 2002, however, Alan Borden, the delegate of the Commissioner, advised all parties that he was in agreement with Ms. Down's analysis and recommendation and that he was dismissing the complaint. [53] Counsel for the petitioners wrote to the Commission on May 24, 2002, requesting a reconsideration of Mr. Borden’s decision on the basis that Mr. Borden failed to hold a hearing and to give reasons for dismissing the petitioners' submissions. On June 13, 2002, David Hosking, another delegate of the Commissioner, wrote to counsel for the petitioners, denying the request for reconsideration. He observed that Mr. Borden had adopted the analysis of Ms. Down and was entitled to do so. He further stated that, since the
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 27 petitioners' submissions to the Commission raised no significant new issues, there was no need for Mr. Borden to provide a detailed response to those submissions. The Police [54] The petitioners' interaction with the Saanich police began on February 19, 2002. On that day, Mr. Young phoned Health Canada regarding the imminent expiry of his medical 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) marihuana exemption. An employee from Health Canada contacted the SPD later that day to report that Mr. Young had threatened to bomb their offices. [55] Constable Muth responded to the complaint by attending at the petitioners' residence. Mr. Young denied making any threat to the Health Canada employee. Constable Muth asked Mr. Young for the expiry date on his medical marihuana exemption. Mr. Young refused to provide this information on the ground that it was private medical information. [56] On May 3, 2002, the petitioners delivered a written complaint to the SPD concerning the behaviour of their neighbour, Ms. Lort. The substance of the complaint was that Ms. Lort was continually staring at the petitioners and had taken a picture of them on one occasion.
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 25: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 77 and 78:
Young v. Saanich Police Department,
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?