Hunter v Southam Inc

The first major Charter decision. The Director of Investigation under the Combines Investigation Act authorized warrantless searches of Southam's offices. The SCC struck down the authorization and gave Canada its foundational interpretive method for the Charter and its first articulation of the s.8 reasonable expectation of privacy framework.

Combines investigators entered Southam's newspaper offices to search for documents under s.10 of the Combines Investigation Act, which permitted searches authorized by the Director himself rather than a judicial officer. Southam challenged the authorization as a breach of s.8 of the Charter (unreasonable search and seizure).

(1) How should Charter rights be interpreted? (2) Does s.10 of the Combines Investigation Act violate s.8 of the Charter?

Charter rights must be given a purposive, large and liberal interpretation. Section 10 violated s.8 and could not be saved.

Charter provisions are interpreted purposively — by reference to the character and the larger objects of the Charter, the language chosen, and the historical origins of the right. Section 8 protects a reasonable expectation of privacy. A search is presumptively unreasonable unless authorized by a neutral and impartial arbiter capable of acting judicially, on prior authorization based on reasonable and probable grounds established under oath.

Dickson J (as he then was) held that the Charter must be interpreted by reference to its purposes, not narrowly. Section 8's purpose is to protect individuals from unjustified state intrusions on their privacy. The minimum constitutional requirements for a reasonable search are: prior authorization, by a neutral arbiter, on the basis of reasonable and probable grounds. The Director was not neutral — he was the investigator. Section 10 failed.

Established the purposive method for Charter interpretation that all subsequent decisions adopt. Created the s.8 framework that governs every search-and-seizure case in Canadian criminal law. The phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" enters Canadian law.

Hunter v Southam Inc, [1984] 2 SCR 145, 1984 CanLII 33 (SCC).

Dickson J, Estey J, McIntyre J, Chouinard J, Lamer J, Wilson J, Beetz J