The Lawyers Weekly - August 6, 2010

Ward
Continued From Page 1

there are countervailing factors that would render damages inappropriate and unjust. The final step is to assess the quantum of damages.

Recognizing that such dam-
ages are a new endeavour, the
court cautioned that a determin-
ation as to when they are appro-
priate “should develop incremen-
tally.” The court also left open for
future judicial development a
number of factors relevant to the
issue of awarding constitutional
damages, particularly where to
place limits on the remedy.

46 searches for law firms every minute. Can your firm be found on martindale.com?
ate damages award. The court
upheld the $5,000 award as
being appropriate.

For the car seizure, the court found that Ward did not suffer any injury and, as a result, set aside the $100 damages award. Instead, the court substituted a declaration that the vehicle seizure violated Ward’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter.

The decision was important because there was conflicting Court of Appeal authority across the country, according to Vancouver lawyer Brian Samuels, who represented Ward. “It puts some teeth in the Charter remedies clause,” added Samuels, who asserted that the remedy of

“It puts some teeth in
the Charter remedies
clause…[and] opens
the door for legitimate
claims being
pursued, including
class actions.

-Global law firm directory targeting buyers of legal services -Over 91,000 views of Canadian lawyers & law firms every month -Global monthly average of 2.94 million views of lawyers and law firms and 8.28 million unique visitors in the last year -Traffic reports provide extensive information about who is viewing your profile -Powered by Martindale-Hubbell – the trusted online resource for buyers of legal services for over 140 years. Part of the LexisNexis Group.

0410-032 © LexisNexis 2010

If you are a law firm in Canada and are looking to target buyers of legal services within Canada, USA or internationally, please contact Mike Carey, our dedicated account manager mike.carey@lexisnexis.com or call toll free on 877-269-9880.

only a declaration is “a pretty hol-
low remedy.” However, given the
amount awarded in this case,
Samuels noted that it could still
make it unfeasible for most
people whose rights were vio-
lated to pursue a claim. Nonethe-
less, he added that it “opens the
door for legitimate claims being
pursued, including class actions.”
In a written statement, the Van-
couver Police Department (VPD)
said that it was pleased that the
ruling upheld the trial judge’s find-
ings that the police officers acted in
good faith when they arrested
Ward, and that no compensation
should be awarded for the tempor-
ary impounding of his car.
“We cannot speak to the
award Mr. Ward received for
being strip-searched at the jail,
since at the time the jail was
under the jurisdiction of the
Province,” said the statement.
“We can say that since control of
the jail has reverted to the VPD,
that we have a clearly defined
policy around strip-searches.
They are now only conducted in
the jail when there are reason-
able grounds to justify it.”
British Columbia Attorney
General Michael de Jong had not
commented publicly on the deci-
sion as of press time. ;

Reasons: Vancouver (City) v. Ward, [2010] S.C.J. No. 27.

LexisNexis, the Knowledge Burst Logo and Martindale-Hubbell are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. used under license. ©2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.