Cheema v. Ross et al., (1991) 2 B.C.A.C. 92 (CA)

• Judge: McEachern, C.J.B.C., Hutcheon and Toy, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: May 06, 1991
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 92 (CA)

Cheema v. Ross (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 92 (CA);

    5 W.A.C. 92

MLB headnote and full text

Harbhajan S. Cheema (plaintiff/appellant) v. John Alexander Ross, John A. Doe, John B. Doe, and The Corporation of the District of West Vancouver (defendants/respondents)

(CA012593)

Indexed As: Cheema v. Ross et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.B.C., Hutcheon and Toy, JJ.A.

July 4, 1991.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued members of the West Vancouver Police Department (the defendants) for damages for assault and trespass. The defendants applied for judgment under Supreme Court Rule 18A (i.e. the summary trial procedure).

The British Columbia Supreme Court, per Lander, J., allowed the defendants' application and dismissed the plaintiff's action. The plaintiff appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1850.9

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Noise bylaws - The West Vancouver Noise Control Bylaw prohibited, inter alia, the amplification of sound on public property that could be heard on residential property for longer than 15 minutes - During a demonstration, police temporarily seized a loudspeaker system, when the plaintiff used the system longer than 15 minutes contrary to the bylaw - The plaintiff alleged that his right to freedom of expression was infringed by the police conduct and the bylaw - The British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff's argument - See paragraphs 29 to 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 2204

Freedom of association - Denial of right of - What constitutes - Noise bylaws - The West Vancouver Noise Control Bylaw prohibited, inter alia, the amplification of sound on public property that could be heard on residential property for longer than 15 minutes - During a demonstration, police temporarily seized a loudspeaker system, when the plaintiff used the system longer than 15 minutes contrary to the bylaw - The plaintiff alleged that his right to freedom of association was infringed - The British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected this argument - See paragraphs 39 to 43.

Civil Rights - Topic 5544

Equality and protection of the law - Denial of - What constitutes - Unequal administration of the law - The Indian Consul General was celebrating Indian Independence Day - The plaintiff was involved in a protest outside the premises - Police temporarily seized loudspeaker equipment from the plaintiff when it was used longer than 15 minutes contrary to a municipal noise bylaw - No such seizures were made on the Consul General's premises although there may have been amplification equipment in use - The plaintiff alleged discrimination contrary to s. 15 of the Charter - The British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff's argument - See paragraphs 44 to 51.

Evidence - Topic 3686

Documentary evidence - Videotapes - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed briefly the admissibility of videotape evidence - See paragraphs 18 to 22.

Municipal Law - Topic 3848

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds - Uncertainty or vagueness - The West Vancouver Noise Control Bylaw prohibited, inter alia, the amplification of sound on public property that could be heard on residential property for longer than 15 minutes - The British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the bylaw was vague or over broad - See paragraphs 23 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Maloney (No.2) (1976), 29 C.C.C.(2d) 431, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Harvey (1988), 27 B.C.L.R.(2d) 265 (Co.Ct.), refd to. [para. 24].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur Géneral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 92 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 2(b) [para. 29]; sect. 2(d) [para. 39]; sect. 15 [para. 44]; sect. 24(1) [para. 48].

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 18A.

West Vancouver Noise Control Bylaw, Bylaw No. 3056 (Nov. 1, 1982) [para. 23].

Counsel:

C.F. Ash, for the appellant;

   A.P. Seckel, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on May 6, 1991, in Vancouver, B.C., before, McEachern, C.J.B.C., Hutcheon and Toy, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered by Toy, J.A., on July 4, 1991.