James Allan
Read as a whole, it appears that s. 7 was intended to confer protection on a singularly human level. A plain, common sense reading of the phrase "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person" serves to underline the human element involved; only human beings can enjoy these rights. "Everyone" then, must be read in light of the rest of the section and defined to exclude corporations and other artificial entities incapable of enjoying life, liberty or security of the person, and include only human beings. In this regard, the case of R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 is of no application. There are no penal proceedings pending in this case, so the principle articulated in Big M Drug Mart is not involved: Irwin Toy Ltd. v. A. G. Que., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; Dywidag Systems v. Zutphen Brothers Construction Ltd., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 705; Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 3.
Printed copy · Anthology Volume 9, page 1181
