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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 36 an action of government or on behalf of government. All the decisions and steps taken by the CRHC were as a private landlord pursuant to the tenancy agreement and the RTA. I do not accept that the CRHC was a government actor. The Assumptions [78] I return now to explain my decision not to refer these matters to the trial list. I intend to address only those 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) issues put forward by the petitioners that were of potential significance. As I have earlier indicated, I am persuaded that the petitioners' Charter challenges cannot succeed, regardless of whether I accept their view of the evidence. Thus, my analysis of the issues raised will be based, in each case, on a number of assumptions favourable to the petitioners. Those assumptions are as follows: • Mr. Young’s disability leaves him with no choice but to smoke marihuana and to smoke it in his residence. • The CRHC is a government actor. • In evicting Mr. Young, the CRHC was acting in furtherance of a policy to evict persons whose marihuana smoking disturbed other tenants.
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 37 The one key assumption that I cannot make in the petitioners' favour is that the neighbours' complaints of marihuana smell were unfounded. The arbitrator came to the opposite conclusion based on the evidence before him, as he was entitled to do. For reasons that I will set out later under the heading Review of the Arbitrator's Findings of Fact, it is not open to me to come to a different conclusion on this point. 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) Section 15 15.(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Issues [79] The petitioners contend that they were flagrantly harassed by intolerant neighbours and that the CRD and the police failed to provide necessary assistance. According to the petitioners, these failures stemmed from discriminatory beliefs about the medical use of marihuana. In essence, the petitioners argue that the CRD has a duty to accommodate Mr. Young's disability by controlling the behaviour of other tenants and not seeking to evict the petitioners.
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 35: Young v. Saanich Police Department,

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?