Quote:
Originally Posted by AR_Six
No it couldn't. In order to violate s.8 there needs to be a reasonable expectation of privacy being violated. Aside from the fact that the point of the impounding isn't to snoop around your car, there are plenty of s.8 cases out there (i.e. Belnavis) which clearly state that an automobile is generally subject to a reduced standard for s.8 purposes. Classic statement of Canadian constitutional law is that the charter protects people, not places, and it certainly doesn't protect your car. Long story short, your property rights are in no way enshrined in the Charter.
This, however, is far more likely, particularly if there is no avenue for judicial review built into this thing that would pass constitutional muster. There are plenty of absolute liability offences out there which is perfectly fine but I can't think of any off the top of my head that don't allow you to get in front of a judge to protest.
|
Not just that, but criminal law is the purview of the Fed, and an argument can easily be made that the Province is legislating in an area where it has no jurisdiction.
By the way, a challenge to the BC legislation is working its way through the courts.
I hate this law. This is punishment without recourse at the discretion of a bureaucrat (cop) which does nothing to address the actual problem (Telscher and the like). Big Brother indeed.