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

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