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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 32 not government actors. I am simply not persuaded on the evidence before me that any of these individuals acted in concert with any of the respondents to discriminate against the petitioners. Nor do I accept that the police had any interest whatsoever in the eviction of the petitioners. Other necessary factual underpinnings for the conspiracy argument, including the alleged improper sharing of information between the police and the CRHC, were not established in evidence. 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) [67] One of the significant procedural obstacles is that the CRHC is not a party to the first proceeding, even though the complaints are inextricably linked with the decision by the CRHC, as the landlord, to seek eviction and the steps taken to achieve that end. Even if the CRHC was a party, I am not persuaded that it was a government actor for purposes of the Charter. [68] Another obstacle is created by the petitioners' failure to comply with s. 8 of the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68, which requires that notice be given to the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia of a hearing at which constitutional remedies are sought as they are here. [69] I observe that the petitioners do not contend that the relevant provisions of the RTA fail to comply with Charter
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 33 requirements. I find no evidence that the CRHC acted pursuant to any policy with a view to discriminating against the petitioners for using marihuana. Instead, I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord attempted to take reasonable steps to accommodate the petitioners, but the petitioners refused to cooperate. The CRHC was entitled to rely on the statute and did so in seeking to evict. 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) [70] In the course of proceedings under the RTA, Mr. and Mrs. Young contended, as they did before me, that there was no possible smell in the apartment complex associated with Mr. Young's use of marihuana. Thus, the petitioners continue to rely on the lack of smell as a starting point for many of their arguments, yet the arbitrator clearly found otherwise based on the evidence before him. That finding formed the basis for refusing to set aside the Notice and was never overcome on the evidence before me. [71] Because the petitioners are self-represented, I considered inviting an application to amend: either to add the CRHC as a party or to allege that it was acting throughout on behalf of the CRD, which is indisputably a government actor. I then further considered referring any necessary factual issues to the trial list to avoid the problems
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 31: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 83 and 84:
Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 85 and 86:
Young v. Saanich Police Department,
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?