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

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 56
life or health without fear of criminal sanction if
an act of Parliament forces a person whose life or
health is in danger to choose between, on the one
hand, the commission of a crime to obtain effective
and timely medical treatment and, on the other hand,
inadequate treatment or no treatment at all, the
right to security of the person has been violated.
The court further relied upon the reasoning of Sopinka J. in
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3
S.C.R. 519 at 588:
2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII)
... There is no question, then, that personal
autonomy, at least with respect to the right to make
choices concerning one's own body, control over
one's physical and psychological integrity, and
basic human dignity are encompassed within security
of the person, at least to the extent of freedom
from criminal prohibitions which interfere with
these. [emphasis added]
[121] Subsequent authorities have found a breach of the
right to security of the person in non-criminal contexts as
well. In Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights
Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307, Bastarache J., writing for
the majority of the court, stated as follows at paras. 56-57:
The principle that the right to security of the
person encompasses serious state-imposed
psychological stress has recently been reiterated by
this Court in G.(J.), supra. At issue in G.(J.) was
whether relieving a parent of the custody of his or
her children restricts a parent's right to security
of the person. Lamer C.J. held that the parental
interest in raising one's children is one of
fundamental personal importance. State removal of a
child from parental custody thus constitutes direct