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

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 52
deprived thereof except in accordance with the
principles of fundamental justice.
Issues
[112] The petitioners contend that the CRD breached their
s. 7 rights by disclosing to others Mr. Young's private
medical information as well as details about the tenancy
dispute. I do not propose to address these complaints
2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII)
separately as they are without foundation. For the most part,
the petitioners were responsible for any dissemination of
private information, including to the media and politicians.
They cannot complain when others respond.
[113] The petitioners also contend that the CRD adopted a
"zero-tolerance" policy prohibiting medical marihuana use such
as to interfere with Mr. Young's choice of medication and
where to establish a home. I will address this argument
below, but only on the basis of the earlier stated
assumptions.
[114] As against the SPD, the petitioners first contend
that the police also improperly shared information with
others. During his submission, Mr. Young referred several
times to his concern that Mr. Borzoni, who acted as counsel
for all the respondents, performed some improper function