Cpcca Case

There are three substantial questions that must be considered in this case; which are, does the charter of rights and freedoms apply to the CPCC, has Tim’s rights been violated and if so, can this violation be justified in a free and democratic society. Section 32 1(a) and (b) applies to the Canadian government and government (parliament/ legislators) of the government and all their authority they are in. Only the government has the ability to violate the charter of rights and freedoms. If a violation has occurred and the charter does come into effect (operation dismantle v. the queen). The charter does not apply to contractors or tort laws as set out by dolphin delivery as the authority; however, the work CPCC is not a contract based as their service to the government is infinitive.To determine whether or not section 32 (1)(a) or (b) applies to Canadian Private Copyright Collective, thereby also putting into effect the charter, one must consider if the five part legal tests
Citizen or not any person in Canada is entitled to section 8 rights. However, these rights do not extend to corporations and can be justified under section 33, section 1 and reasonable searches. First we will examine if any violations occurred under section eight of the charter of rights and freedoms. Part one is reasonable expectation of privacy which does exist because Tim does have reasonable expectation of privacy over his backpack from the police therefore section eight of the charter does apply (Authority: R. v. Plant). Privacy is context specific in this case Tim’s backpack would be on his persons at all times and would be under his supervision and protection therefore there is a high degree of privacy (R. v. Buhay, ). Moreover, he did not openly want to share the contents of his backpack (R. v. Mellenthin). There is no reasonable expectation that Tim’s privacy would be reduced at any time (R. v.