The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has ruled that the law that allows Canada Post to search packages even if they contain cocaine violates the right to privacy. The decision will not invalidate the evidence collected in these court searches.
The judge’s decision Daniel Boone gives Canada Post and the federal government one year to amend the law authorizing the Crown corporation to open any mail, except a letter to determine if the content is dangerous or illegal.
In his decision, the judge explained that this section of the Canada Post Corporation Act violates the part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees the right to be protected against unreasonable searches or seizures.
The jury Daniel Boone indicates that Canada Post users can expect the contents of their package to be confidential, and the current law is too broad.
The scope of the search power in the law is completely inconsistent with the reasonable expectation that the government will not violate privacy in the mail.written by the judge.
Crown lawyers, Trevor Bridger at Paul Adams argued that Canada Post should be able to find packages that may contain dangerous or illegal material.
The jury Boone is not against this argument, but he believes the current rules do not work.
Some form of objective criteria must be required before a search can take placehe said. It is up to Parliament to choose which criteria will be appropriate.
The case behind the judgment
This decision came in the case of a man in Newfoundland and Labrador who was charged with cocaine trafficking. Crown says the man took a package containing two kilograms of cocaine from a UPS store.
A Canada Post inspector searched the package before the man picked it up. He discovered what appeared to be cocaine and alerted police.
Police obtained a warrant for controlled delivery and placed a tracking device in the package. After opening the package, police arrested the man.
jonathan noonanthe lawyer of the man arrested in this case argued that the Canada Post’s finding of the inspector on the package violated his constitutional right against improper seizure.
The jury Daniel Boone ruled that the man accused of cocaine trafficking would not be exempt from suspension and the evidence seized could be used at his trial.
Unfortunately for him, it was a futile victory, as the declaration of unconstitutionality was an inadequate remedy in his case.said the judge.
Daniel Boone said the outcome of the criminal case was more important than what he called a minimal interference Charter rights.
He argues that the unconstitutional law has a greater impact on the public than in the particular case of the man accused of cocaine trafficking.
With information from Darrell Roberts ng CBC
Radio Canada
Source: Radio-Canada
