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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 58 interference must be assessed objectively, with a view to their impact on the psychological integrity of a person of reasonable sensibility. This need not rise to the level of nervous shock or psychiatric illness, but must be greater than ordinary stress or anxiety. [123] It is obvious that the loss of rental accommodations cannot be equated with the loss of custody of a child and probably would not cause a profound impact on the psychological integrity of a person of reasonable sensibility. 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) I am inclined to the view, however, that the impact that must be considered is not Mr. Young's loss of rental accommodations but, rather (once again, based on the earlier assumptions), his loss of the use of his medicine. See the reasoning in Godbout v. Longeuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844 at para. 61. [124] Such a deprivation clearly impacts Mr. Young's bodily integrity and would probably also constitute interference with his psychological integrity. If denying a woman an abortion is sufficient to cause a serious and profound effect on her psychological integrity, then presumably denying a seriously-ill man his medication would have at least a comparable effect. Decisions about personal medical care clearly engage the values of personal autonomy and human dignity that s. 7 is meant to protect. The distinction between deprivation by criminal sanction and
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 59 deprivation by non-criminal sanction is probably best left to the "principles of fundamental justice" analysis. [125] For these reasons, and only on the basis of the assumptions made at the outset, I would conclude that Mr. Young has been deprived of his s. 7 right to liberty and security of the person. Principles of Fundamental Justice 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) [126] The next step in the s. 7 analysis is to determine whether the deprivation of liberty and security of the person is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. In Godbout, La Forest J. explained that this analysis often involves balancing individual rights against collective interests. At para. 76, he stated: But just as this Court has relied on specific principles or policies to guide its analysis in particular cases, it has also acknowledged that looking to "the principles of fundamental justice" often involves the more general endeavour of balancing the constitutional right of the individual claimant against the countervailing interests of the state. In other words, deciding whether the principles of fundamental justice have been respected in a particular case has been understood not only as requiring that the infringement at issue be evaluated in light of a specific principle pertinent to the case, but also as permitting a broader inquiry into whether the right to life, liberty or security of the person asserted by the individual can, in the circumstances, justifiably be violated given the interests or purposes sought to be advanced in doing so. To my mind, performing
Page 1 and 2:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4:
Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 5 and 6:
Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 7 and 8: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 57: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?