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

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 55
fundamental importance to engage a s. 7 liberty interest. It
appears then, that the alleged prohibition on marihuana smoke
by the CRHC constitutes a deprivation of Mr. Young's s. 7
liberty rights, though obviously the sanction of eviction is
not as severe as that imposed by the CDSA, namely
imprisonment.
Security of the Person
2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII)
[119] In Parker, it was held that depriving a patient with
a life-threatening illness of medication, through a criminal
sanction, constituted serious interference with both physical
and psychological integrity. In the case at bar, the sanction
is not criminal in nature, but does have the effect of
depriving Mr. Young of his medication (based solely on the
assumptions I have made for the purpose of this analysis).
[120] Most of the "security of the person" jurisprudence
cited in Parker was decided in the criminal law context.
Rosenberg J.A. quoted, for instance, from the reasons of
Beetz J. in R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 at 91:
If a rule of criminal law precludes a person
from obtaining appropriate medical treatment when
his or her life or health is in danger, then the
state has intervened and this intervention
constitutes a violation of that man's or that
woman's security of the person. "Security of the
person" must include a right of access to medical
treatment for a condition representing a danger to