Hunter v. Southam Inc.

SCCInfoBox
case-name=Hunter v. Southam Inc.
full-case-name=Lawson A. W. Hunter, Director of Investigation and Research of the Combines Investigation Branch, Michael J. Milton, Michael L. Murphy, J. Andrew McAlpine, and Antonio P. Marrocco, also known as Anthony P. Marroco v. Southam Inc.
heard-date=November 22, 1983
decided-date=September 17, 1984
citations= [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145
docket=17569
history=on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta
ruling=Hunter appeal dismissed
ratio=
SCC=1983-1984
Unanimous=Dickson J.
NotParticipating=Laskin C.J.
LawsApplied=

"Hunter v. Southam Inc." [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada privacy rights case and as well is the first Supreme Court decision to consider section 8 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

Background

An investigation was begun by the government under the authority of the "Combines Investigation Act" into Southam Newspaper. The investigators entered Southam's offices in Edmonton and elsewhere to examine documents. The search was authorized prior to the enactment of the Charter but the search did not commence until afterwards. The challenge was allowed.

At the Alberta Court of Appeal, the judge found that part of the Act was inconsistent with the Charter and therefore of no force or effect.

The Supreme Court considered section 8 for the first time and upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeal.000

Reasons of the Court

Chief Justice Dickson, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the "Combines Investigation Act" violated the Charter as it did not provide an appropriate standard for administering warrants.

The Court held that the purpose of section 8 is to protect an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, and to limit government action that will encroach on that expectation. Furthermore, to assess the extent of those rights the right to privacy must be balanced against the government's duty to enforce the law.

In reaffirming the doctrine of purposive interpretation when reading the Constitution, Dickson goes on to make a fundamental and oft quoted statement of the purpose of the Constitution and how it should be interpreted, stating:

Notes

External links

*