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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 46 [96] As a private corporation, however, the CRHC is not operating on the basis of enabling legislation. It is governed, rather, by a memorandum, articles and a special resolution authorizing it to carry on business that includes the management of public housing. I am doubtful whether any of those "enactments" (using the term loosely) can be the subject of a Charter challenge in this context. 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) Absence of a Policy [97] I am likewise not persuaded that the alleged failure of the CRHC to adopt some type of marihuana-friendly policy can be construed as a breach of Mr. Young's s. 15 rights. It may have been possible for Mr. Vriend to challenge the underinclusivity of Alberta's human rights legislation, but that was because the legislation was found to confer a benefit of human rights protection on some but not others: Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493. [98] The CRHC is not in the business of providing for human rights protection. If its actual policies are not discriminatory, I cannot see how the lack of a formal nondiscrimination policy could give rise to a Charter breach. [99] I give no effect to the s. 15 arguments.
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 47 Section 8 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. Issues [100] The petitioners' complaint against the SPD, as it relates to s. 8, is that by questioning Mr. Young with regard to his medical marihuana exemption, the police thereby 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) conducted a warrantless search. The gist of Mr. Young's complaint in this regard is that the information sought was personal medical information over which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that the police have no right to investigate someone for alleged marihuana use unless there are indicators that the use is for non-medicinal purposes. [101] As to the CRD, the petitioners allege that the CRHC attempted to conduct an unjustified search of the bedrooms in the petitioners' apartment on March 12, 2002. I observe that no such CRHC "search" ever took place, although there is an outstanding order by Arbitrator Knox made pursuant to the RTA permitting entry for an annual inspection. It is not open to the petitioners to attack that order in the present proceedings.
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 45: Young v. Saanich Police Department,

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?