Supreme Court Case: R. V. Dyment
Personally, I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the landmark case of R. v. Dyment. Particularly, with La Forest J. commentary it provided on the importance of privacy:
“…society has come to realize that privacy is at the heart of liberty in modern state…Grounded in man’s physical and moral autonomy privacy is essential for the well being of the individual. For this reason alone, it is worthy of constitutional protection, but it also has profound significance for the public order. The restraints imposed on government to pry into the lives of the citizen go to the essence of a democratic state” (pg. 427-428).
La Forest J. statement holds constitutional significance of the right to privacy. In other words, to what extent should the government …show more content…
The evidence was deemed to be inadmissible for the reason being the seizing of Dyment’s blood was unlawful as the state authority took the sample without the consent of the owner. There was a reasonable expectation of privacy placed on the blood sample that was acquired from the Dyment.
Given the legal circumstances, the dissenting opinion provided by Justice McIntyre is also of great importance. Judge McIntyre dissenting opinion addresses the important underlying conflict in views between the parties. The Court finally came to the conclusion that the blood sample should not be admissible in court as the seizure was unlawfully acquired and infringed Dyment’s autonomy, dignity and privacy in the name of collecting information.
Justice Dickson’s interpretation of the s.8 of the Charter is best viewed as obiter dicta that needs to be taken into consideration for similar cases. La Forest J. provided that “[g]overments at all levels have in recent years recognized [the importance of protecting information] and have devised rules and regulations to restrict the uses of information collected by them to those for which it was obtained” (pg.
“…society has come to realize that privacy is at the heart of liberty in modern state…Grounded in man’s physical and moral autonomy privacy is essential for the well being of the individual. For this reason alone, it is worthy of constitutional protection, but it also has profound significance for the public order. The restraints imposed on government to pry into the lives of the citizen go to the essence of a democratic state” (pg. 427-428).
La Forest J. statement holds constitutional significance of the right to privacy. In other words, to what extent should the government …show more content…
The evidence was deemed to be inadmissible for the reason being the seizing of Dyment’s blood was unlawful as the state authority took the sample without the consent of the owner. There was a reasonable expectation of privacy placed on the blood sample that was acquired from the Dyment.
Given the legal circumstances, the dissenting opinion provided by Justice McIntyre is also of great importance. Judge McIntyre dissenting opinion addresses the important underlying conflict in views between the parties. The Court finally came to the conclusion that the blood sample should not be admissible in court as the seizure was unlawfully acquired and infringed Dyment’s autonomy, dignity and privacy in the name of collecting information.
Justice Dickson’s interpretation of the s.8 of the Charter is best viewed as obiter dicta that needs to be taken into consideration for similar cases. La Forest J. provided that “[g]overments at all levels have in recent years recognized [the importance of protecting information] and have devised rules and regulations to restrict the uses of information collected by them to those for which it was obtained” (pg.