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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 62 marihuana for medicinal purposes. In reality, accommodation is available, including social housing, that will permit Mr. Young to continue to smoke marihuana without disturbing those living around him. [130] There is, perhaps, another way to approach the s. 7 analysis in this case. Mr. Young also argued that the CRHC policy deprives him of his s. 7 right to liberty by 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) interfering with his choice of where to establish his residence. He relied on the decision in Godbout for the proposition that the choice of where to establish one's home falls within the class of fundamental decisions deserving of s. 7 protection. Even assuming that the principle in Godbout applies to the choice of a particular residence, as opposed to the choice of a neighbourhood or community generally, which was the issue in Godbout, I am of the view that this argument would founder on the "principles of fundamental justice" analysis as well. Once again, the collective interest outweighs that of the individual. I see no basis upon which the petitioners could establish any breach of s. 7 in the circumstances. [131] As none of the alleged Charter breaches were made out, the petition filed under Action 02/5145 is dismissed as against both the SPD and the CRD. The only questions
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 63 remaining for determination fall within the rubric of judicial review of Arbitrator Gilbert’s decision which is the subject of attack in Action 02/4528. Issues on Judicial Review [132] Attached as Appendix A to these reasons are the relevant provisions of the RTA and the Rules of Procedure that govern arbitrations under the Act. Those provisions and rules 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) are extensive. It is apparent that the Legislature intended, in enacting the RTA, to provide a means of dispute resolution between landlord and tenant that was relatively inexpensive, informal and expeditious. Although there is not a full privative clause, the legislation contains a "finality" clause. This provision is intended to avoid retrying issues except as otherwise provided in the Act. [133] The petitioners contend that Arbitrator Gilbert committed numerous procedural errors, misapprehended the evidence before him and was biased, or conducted the hearing in a manner that gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Mr. and Mrs. Young seek an order setting aside the arbitrator’s decision of August 29, 2002. [134] Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Young contend that Arbitrator Katz erred when she denied their application for review and,
Page 1 and 2:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4:
Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 61: 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?