Introducing
Prezi AI.
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Loading…
Hunter v. Southam Inc
632
Transcript
Hunter v. Southam Inc
September 17, 1984
Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145
Facts
- Lawson A. W. Hunter against Southam Inc.
- Hunter authorized the search and seizure of any files on the premises of Southam Inc.
- Was believed there was evidence in relation to inquiry under the Act
- Authorization certified by Dr. Frank Roseman, member of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
- Investigation started by government
- On April 20th, 1982, officers of the Combined Investigations Unit were sent to enter and search files in Southam Inc, across Edmonton and other places in Canada.
- Southam orders the search to be blocked (unsuccessfully) on the basis that section 8 of the Charter was violated.
- Albert Court of Appeal orders all files of Southam Inc. are to be sealed and the appeal is carried out on the basis that the Combines Investigation Act was contradictory to the Charter (s.8)
- It was found that the sections 10(1) and 10(3) were inconsistent with section 8 of the Charter and therefore were unconstitutional.
- The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Southam Inc., Hunter appeals their decision to SCC, Chief Justice Dickson J dismisses appeal
Issues
Issues
- Hunter examined documents of Southam's business. They didn't want to give the name of people whose complaints had initiated the inquiry.
- Investigation officers withheld any specific information in regards to the search and therefore Southam Inc. did not know why they were being charged
- Subsections 1 and 3 of 10, in the Combines Investigation Act were unreliable with section 8 of the Canadian of Rights and Freedoms, which specified “Everyone has the right to be secured against unreasonable search and seizure”.
- Combines Investigation Officers did not have the right to search Southam Inc's premises without reason and evidence of an offense. They had no sworn evidence.
- Hunter believed that he had jurisdiction over the Albert Court, because under s(2) of the federal court act, he acted as the federal board.
- A warrant must granted by someone capable of acting judicially, not just administratively or on investigation, the person was biased in favour of Hunter.
- The actions of Hunter and his investigators was unconstitutional
- The Restrictive Trade Practices Commissioner did not have to actually agree with the Hunter, in the regards that there are reasonable grounds to search and seize.
Decisions
Decisions
- Both parties appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal.
- Court ruled that the case had grounds to be heard on the following bases: (1)whether the Alberta courts or the Federal Court had jurisdiction to make the orders requested and (2) whether s. 10 of the Act was in whole or in part inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution"
- Court ruled that s. 10 of the Combines Investigation Act were indeed inconsistent with the provisions of s. 8 of the Charter.
- Hunter then took his Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court dismissed Hunter's appeal, and ruled in favour of Southam Inc.
- Sept. 17, 1984 Supreme Court of Canada declared that warrantless searches were unreasonable under s8 of the charter
- Supreme Court came to the conclusion that subsections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Combines Investigation Act, were inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Choose a template
Presentations from around the world
Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi