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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 30 [61] Rather, on July 25, 2002, Mr. Young lodged formal complaints with the SPD regarding the conduct of the police on February 19, 2002 and May 31, 2002. These complaints were summarily dismissed. [62] I do not propose to relate all of the evidence concerning the petitioners' subsequent interactions with the SPD. It will suffice to say that Mr. and Mrs. Young have sent numerous 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) letters to the Department seeking the disclosure and "correction" of information in police records and laying complaints against their neighbours and the Department itself. The petitioners are dissatisfied with the response they have received from the police. [63] The petitioners also made numerous requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 165, regarding records held by the SPD, the CRHC and the City of Saanich. The petitioners also take issue with the alleged sharing of their private information between the police, the CRHC and neighbouring tenants. Charter Issues [64] In Action 02/5145, Mr. and Mrs. Young allege breaches of their rights under sections 7, 8 and 15 of the Charter. They contend that they are "victims of terrible systemic
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 31 discrimination at the hands of bullies, the CRD and the SPD." This, they say, is because they represent a new vulnerable group, namely individuals who require the use of marihuana for health reasons. According to the petitioners, the respondents stereotyped them as illegal users of marihuana and set about to fabricate a case for eviction based on the alleged, but in fact non-existent, presence of smoke in the complex said to adversely affect neighbours. While the petitioners avoid 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) using the word "conspiracy", the arguments they present, if accepted, amount to nothing less. In my view, the petitioners have taken a string of relatively benign unconnected events and forced them into a conspiracy theory. [65] There are formidable obstacles along the paths the petitioners have chosen to follow in presenting their case. Some arise out of misconceptions as to the availability of Charter protection when the impugned conduct is by someone other than a state actor. Others arise out of either the lack of a proper evidentiary basis for the particular arguments raised or, as the matter was argued on affidavit evidence, material conflicts in the evidence. [66] The following are examples of the obstacles to which I refer. The petitioners claim Charter relief arising, in part, out of the conduct of individual neighbours, who are clearly
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 29: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 81 and 82:
Young v. Saanich Police Department,
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?