Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).
Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).
Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Young</strong> v. <strong>Saanich</strong> <strong>Police</strong> <strong>Department</strong>, et al Page 51<br />
expectation of privacy in his residence. That expectation,<br />
however, is not unlimited.<br />
[109] Mr. and Mrs. <strong>Young</strong> do not own their residence. They<br />
are tenants with a contractual leasehold interest. The RTA<br />
expressly permits a landlord to enter a residential premise<br />
for a reasonable purpose. Arbitrator Knox found that annual<br />
inspections were a reasonable purpose. Thus, the petitioners<br />
<strong>2003</strong> <strong>BCSC</strong> <strong>926</strong> (<strong>CanLII</strong>)<br />
never had any absolute right to privacy in their bedrooms. At<br />
the very least, the petitioners waived their right to privacy<br />
to the limited extent necessary for the CRHC to conduct<br />
inspections for a reasonable purpose.<br />
[110] I also have difficulty with Mr. <strong>Young</strong>'s argument<br />
that his bedrooms should be insulated from inspection because<br />
they contain his supply of medicine. If there are limits to a<br />
person's expectation of privacy in a particular location,<br />
those limits cannot be overcome merely by placing more items<br />
of a private nature in that location.<br />
[111] For these reasons, I have concluded that the<br />
petitioners' s. 8 arguments are without merit.<br />
Section 7<br />
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and<br />
security of the person and the right not to be
Change language