SCC Upholds Constitutional Damages Award

SCC Upholds Constitutional Damages Award

CLEBC Staff/July 28, 2010

In Vancouver (City) v. Ward, 2010 SCC 27, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a constitutional damages award for an unjustified detention and strip search of a Vancouver lawyer, but allowed appeals of a damages award for seizure of his car.

Cameron Ward, who was present at a ceremony to mark the opening of a gate at the entrance to Vancouver’s Chinatown in 2002, was identified mistakenly by Vancouver Police Department officers as an individual intending to throw a pie at Prime Minister Chrétien, following receipt of an anonymous tip.

VPD detectives subsequently determined that they did not have grounds to obtain the required search warrant or evidence to charge Mr. Ward for attempted assault, and released him after 4.5 hours spent in police lockup.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia assessed damages under s. 24(1) of the Charter at $100 for the seizure of the car and $5,000 for the strip search, which awards were upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Saying authority is sparse on the question of when damages may be awarded under s. 24(1) of the Charter, and what the amount of such damages should be, the SCC set out to provide a comprehensive analysis of the object of damages for Charter breaches and the considerations that guide their award.

The court said the claimant must first establish that damages under s. 24(1) are functionally justified. The state then has the opportunity to negate that the award is “appropriate and just”. If it fails to do so, the final step is to assess the quantum of the damages.

To be “appropriate and just”, an award of damages must represent a meaningful response to the seriousness of the breach and the objectives of s. 24(1) damages. It should also not duplicate damages awarded under private law causes of action.

With respect to the seizure of the car, the court said a declaration under s. 24(1) that the vehicle seizure violated the claimant’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter adequately serves the need for vindication of the right and deterrence of future improper car seizures.