Most recently, in this Court found that the Minister’s decision not to PHS, extend a safe injection site’s exemption from drug possession laws was arbitrary. The purpose of drug possession laws was the protection of health and public safety, and the services provided by the safe injection site actually contributed to these objectives. Thus, the effect of not extending the exemption that is, prohibiting the — safe injection site from operating was contrary to the objectives of the drug — possession laws. Another way in which laws may violate our basic values is through what the cases have called the law goes too far and interferes with some “overbreadth”: conduct that bears no connection to its objective. In [1994] 3 S.C.R. R. v. Heywood, 761, the accused challenged a vagrancy law that prohibited offenders convicted of listed offences from in public parks. The majority of the Court found that “loitering” the law, which aimed to protect children from sexual predators, was overbroad; insofar as the law applied to offenders who did not constitute a danger to children, and insofar as it applied to parks where children were unlikely to be present, it was unrelated to its objective. In 2004 SCC 46, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489, the challenged R. v. Demers, provisions of the prevented an accused who was found unfit to stand Criminal Code trial from receiving an absolute discharge, and subjected the accused to indefinite appearances before a review board. The purpose of the provisions was allow for “to the ongoing treatment or assessment of the accused in order for him or her to become
Most recently, in PHS, this Court found that the Minister’s decision not to extend a safe injection site’s exemption from drug possession laws was arbitrary. The purpose of drug possession laws was the protection of health and public safety, and the services provided by the safe injection site actually contributed to these objectives. Thus, the effect of not extending the exemption — that is, prohibiting the safe injection site from operating — was contrary to the objectives of the drug possession laws. Another way in which laws may violate our basic values is through what the cases have called “overbreadth”: the law goes too far and interferes with some conduct that bears no connection to its objective. In R. v. Heywood, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761, the accused challenged a vagrancy law that prohibited offenders convicted of listed offences from “loitering” in public parks. The majority of the Court found that the law, which aimed to protect children from sexual predators, was overbroad; insofar as the law applied to offenders who did not constitute a danger to children, and insofar as it applied to parks where children were unlikely to be present, it was unrelated to its objective. In R. v. Demers, 2004 SCC 46, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489, the challenged provisions of the Criminal Code prevented an accused who was found unfit to stand trial from receiving an absolute discharge, and subjected the accused to indefinite appearances before a review board. The purpose of the provisions was “to allow for the ongoing treatment or assessment of the accused in order for him or her to become
Bedford-en.docx