Yes No Share to Facebook
State Imposed Serious Stress: Section 7 Charter of Rights and Freedoms Violations
Question: What are the protections against psychological harm imposed by the government under Canadian law?
Answer: Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, [1982, c. 11] guarantees every individual the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, encompassing protection against serious psychological harm caused by state action. This section ensures that individuals receive fair treatment from the state, particularly when facing significant psychological stress, as reinforced by the Supreme Court in cases like Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307]. Understanding these rights provides critical insight into avenues for redress and protection against state misconduct.
Psychologically Abusive Government
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.
As per Blencoe, the Supreme Court reaffirms that section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, encompasses protection against serious psychological harm caused by state action. The Supreme Court references its earlier decision in New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), where it found that the psychological integrity of a parent is severely affected when the state seeks custody of a child. In G. (J.), the Chief Justice described this as a “gross intrusion” into the private parent-child relationship, highlighting the fundamental importance of psychological security as a personal interest. However, the Supreme Court also acknowledged the difficulty in drawing precise boundaries around what constitutes an infringement on psychological integrity, calling it an “inexact science.”
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
Conclusion
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.