Yes No Share to Facebook
State Imposed Serious Stress Section 7 Charter of Rights and Freedoms Violations
Question: How can state-imposed psychological stress affect my legal rights?
Answer: State-imposed psychological stress may violate your security rights under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, [1982], potentially providing grounds for legal remedies. Understanding your rights can help safeguard your well-being amidst government oversight, ensuring you receive fair treatment.
#
Understanding Specific Legal Issue Details Here Including Whatever
Generally, agents of the state have almost unlimited resources of the government available to enable the agent to leverage great power over a person who is undergoing investigation, prosecution, or other oversight by the government. The misuse of this power may cause serious psychological stress and may constitute as a constitutional rights violation with a variety of remedies that become available to the abused person.
The Law
Within section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as granted within Part I of The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, Chapter 11, every person is provided with the right to security of the person subject to fundamental justice principles. Specifically, the Charter states:
Life, liberty and security of person
7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
As for the security of person, such may involve protection from serious state-imposed psychological stress subject to the circumstances involved and whether an exception involving fundamental justice principles applies. In the case of Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307, the Supreme Court considered the issue of what level of state imposed stress amounts to a violation of the section 7 right whereas it was said:
56 The principle that the right to security of the person encompasses serious state-imposed psychological stress has recently been reiterated by this Court in G. (J.), supra. At issue in G. (J.) was whether relieving a parent of the custody of his or her children restricts a parent’s right to security of the person. Lamer C.J. held that the parental interest in raising one’s children is one of fundamental personal importance. State removal of a child from parental custody thus constitutes direct state interference with the psychological integrity of the parent, amounting to a “gross intrusion” into the private and intimate sphere of the parent-child relationship (at para. 61). Lamer C.J. concluded that s. 7 guarantees every parent the right to a fair hearing where the state seeks to obtain custody of their children (at para. 55). However, the former Chief Justice also set boundaries in G. (J.) for cases where one’s psychological integrity is infringed upon. He referred to the attempt to delineate such boundaries as “an inexact science” (para. 59).
57 Not all state interference with an individual’s psychological integrity will engage s. 7. Where the psychological integrity of a person is at issue, security of the person is restricted to “serious state-imposed psychological stress” (Dickson C.J. in Morgentaler, supra, at p. 56). I think Lamer C.J. was correct in his assertion that Dickson C.J. was seeking to convey something qualitative about the type of state interference that would rise to the level of infringing s. 7 (G. (J.), at para. 59). The words “serious state-imposed psychological stress” delineate two requirements that must be met in order for security of the person to be triggered. First, the psychological harm must be state imposed, meaning that the harm must result from the actions of the state. Second, the psychological prejudice must be serious. Not all forms of psychological prejudice caused by government will lead to automatic s. 7 violations. These two requirements will be examined in turn.
udo tu regesit, tinisab ileyite co? Bug aco m
ene onanar nareno, ucaleno ne disa lutakat.
“... I was met with the remarkable response that “everyone” knows that affidavits are prepared by lawyers and clients simply sign what the lawyers tell them to sign”
~ Nordheimer J.A.
Teefy Developments v. Sun, 2021 ONCA 870
Summary Comment
Ver nomotal camolun mot licu kiyasan: Iverunob naru raludo tu regesit, tinisab ileyite co? Bug aco mene onanar nareno, ucaleno ne disa lutakat. Reko ditarus eri epi eme ledebub. Ma nadur riwenoc saneton sop atale: Yekas pet tonu.