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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 38 [80] Similarly, the petitioners complain that the police failed to adequately investigate and initiate prosecutions as was necessary to prevent harassment by intolerant neighbours. According to the petitioners, the police refused to fulfil their duty because of discriminatory beliefs about the medical use of marihuana. The petitioners completely failed to offer any evidentiary foundation capable of supporting the allegations against the police and it is unnecessary for me to 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) analyze them. [81] Ignoring the reference to the CRD and based instead on the assumptions set out earlier, I find no possible breach of s. 15 arising out of any discriminatory practice. The "Zero-Tolerance" Policy [82] If the CRHC had evicted Mr. Young pursuant to a policy to evict sufferers of multiple sclerosis, this would constitute direct discrimination on the basis of the enumerated ground of physical disability. A section 15 Charter violation would be established. [83] The CRHC did not evict Mr. Young because he suffers from multiple sclerosis. As such, direct discrimination cannot be made out on these facts. I must also consider, however, the
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 39 possibility of adverse effect discrimination. As Iacobucci J. said in Symes v. Canada, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695 at 755: ... it is clear that a law may be discriminatory even if it is not directly or expressly discriminatory. In other words, adverse effects discrimination is comprehended by s. 15(1) ... Likewise, in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143, McIntyre J. stated at p. 164, "identical 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) treatment may frequently produce serious inequality." McIntyre J. went on to say at p. 165, "a law expressed to bind all should not because of irrelevant personal differences have a more burdensome or less beneficial impact on one than another." [84] In Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624, La Forest J. said at para. 64: Adverse effects discrimination is especially relevant in the case of disability. The government will rarely single out disabled persons for discriminatory treatment. More common are laws of general application that have a disparate impact on the disabled. ... [85] Thus, the mere fact that the CRHC applied the same rules, or more accurately, sought the application of the same provincial legislation to Mr. Young, as it would have to any other tenant who smoked marihuana in the building, does not
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 37: 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?