Second+Writing+Assignment+LAW+FINAL
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Carleton University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1001A
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by ChiefDove3742
Second Writing Assignment
Instructor: Prof. Umut Özsu
LAWS1001
March 28, 2022
On April 13, 1982, regarding an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act
appellant Lawson A.W. Hunter, Director of Investigation and Research of the Combines Investigation Branch authorized other appellants, Messrs. Milton, Murphy, McAlpine and Marroco to exercise his authority under section 10 of the Act. Under subsections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act they may enter the premises of the persons of interest and search, copy and examine any record, book or other type of document. On April 16, 1982, in accordance with subsections 10(3) of the Act a member of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission certified the authorization of the Director’s powers. This allowed the appellant’s named above to enter, search and examine all documents and other related evidence at the place of business of the Edmonton Journal, a subsidiary division of the respondent corporation, Southam Inc. On April 20, 1982, officers arrived on the premises of the Edmonton Journal
and presented their certified authorization regarding an inquiry relating to production, distribution and supply of newspapers and related products in Edmonton; allowing them to search all aspects of the specific location of the Edmonton Journal
facilities and ‘elsewhere in Canada’. Upon commencing the search, the appellant declined to give the name of any persons whose complaint launched the inquiry; they also declined to say what the subject of the inquiry was that warranted
the search. Later that day on April 20, 1982, Southam Inc. served a notice of motion for an interim injunction to the officers commencing the search, claiming that they were in violation of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
. At the hearing the appellants failed to justify their acquisition of the certification to search the Edmonton Journal
under subsections 10(3). After multiple hearings a unanimous five-judge panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal agreed that subsections 10(1) and 10(3) were inconsistent with the law set forth by s. 8 of the
Charter and therefore held no power. Following these subsequent hearings, the case was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The core legal issues of the case pertain to the matter of the acquisition of the certificate which allowed the appellants to search the premises of the Edmonton Journal
. The appellants acquired the certificate lawfully however the respondents claim it is in violation of s. 8 of the Charter and violates their rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The main issue that Southam Inc. brings forward is that subsections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act contradict s. 8 of the Charter, therefore infringing on their rights as Canadian citizens.
The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the appeal be dismissed, and costs be awarded to the respondent. The court justifies its decision to dismiss the appeal and award costs to the respondent because it acknowledges the importance of any statute authorizing a search and
seizure; and the infringing nature it has on a citizen’s right to privacy. Section 8 of the Charter is cited often throughout the proceedings, stating that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. To go against this right, through the law, it is crucial that one must present reason for belief that incriminating evidence is being withheld by the respondent in question. However, in attaining their certificate for search and seizure the appellant failed to give
a compelling reason for the purpose of their inquiry or what type of illegal evidence they suspected to find on the property of Southam Inc. Therefore, by order of Chief Justice Laskin, the respondent be awarded costs and the appeal be dismissed.
The legal takeaway in the Hunter vs. Southam Inc. case is that upholding the Charter can contradict other laws therefore rendering them invalid. In this case, through using section 8 of the Charter as the standard for lawful search and seizure, it was proven that subsections 10(1) and 10(3) in the Act
were incoherent with the standards set by the Charter. Therefore, the method
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
used by the appellant was not within their legal rights and thus, they lost the case. Although the law in Canada is set forward to maintain a democratic society, it is clear that different statutes a and laws can infringe on the rights of the citizen. The Hunter vs. Southam Inc. case shows that through examining the law thoroughly the respondent was able to make the court uphold their right to privacy as they went against the state.