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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 53 related to this allegation. There was simply no evidence to support any allegation of wrongdoing on the part of counsel. As to the police, I also note that the petitioners typically sent copies of their correspondence with the police to other entities. On at least one occasion, the letter was copied directly to the CRD. [115] I am also not persuaded, on the evidence, that the 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) police ever refused to carry out their duties in responding to any complaints by the petitioners. To the extent any investigations foundered, I find that the main contributing factor was the unwillingness of the petitioners to reasonably cooperate. I will not further address the issues raised respecting s. 7 violations by the police. CRHC [116] In R. v. Parker (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.), the court held that the blanket marihuana prohibitions in the CDSA violated the accused's s. 7 rights. Rosenberg J.A., writing for the court, held that the marihuana prohibitions infringed the accused's liberty interests for two reasons: (1) because they threatened the accused with criminal prosecution and imprisonment; and
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 51: Young v. Saanich Police Department,

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?