hi.

i'm not a member of the bar, but i took three years of a law program at carleton (after having already graduated with a four year math degree) and feel comfortable representing myself in a constitutional rights challenge. so, i'm not looking for advice or resources. i'm just curious as to the level of interest that the ccla might have in the following case, as i believe it is somewhat of a novel argument, and may have some broad consequences for people faced with records as a consequence of frivolous charges.

i was recently arrested without a warrant and held overnight without cause on charges of criminal harassment related to repeatedly applying for housing. now, i'm not even comfortable claiming i'm innocent. for me to claim that i'm innocent would suggest that i didn't do the thing that i'm being accused of - and i make no such claim. i readily admit that i applied for housing in this complex over and over again, even after i had been asked not to. but, to suggest that this is in any way harassment under canadian law is preposterous. so, this isn't a case where i've been falsely accused so much as it's a case where i've been frivolously accused, and where the error lies not in somebody making false allegations but in incompetent police work. frankly, the officer seemed to have a poor understanding of the law; i was charged with doing something that is not against the law, in this country. while the charges were dropped (no chance of conviction) on a request for detailed disclosure, i was (i believe illegally) printed while i was in custody.

let us put aside the details of the case and accept the premise at face value: i was frivolously charged with criminal harassment and printed while in custody, only to have the charges dropped, leaving me with prints on charges that shouldn't have happened.

while i have applied for a file destruction, and think this ought to be a no-brainer due to the absurdity of the charges, the fact is that harassment is a secondary charge, and i may be denied on those grounds. this is where the rights challenge comes in, as i believe that rule is overly broad - as evidenced by my situation. and, i want to draw special attention to the fact that i'm not even accusing the complainant of making false statements, although i believe that she did. this isn't a denial of the circumstances, it's a misapplication of the law.

the novelty i'm bringing in is bringing the case forward on a breach of s. 6. i live in windsor, and frequently cross into detroit. if a border agent were to look up my record, it would simply see that i had charges of harassment withdrawn - and, without context, that could lead to me being denied entry. i am consequently not able to travel until the file has been destroyed. any refusal to destroy the file would consequently infringe on my mobility rights.

while the charges against me were uniquely frivolous, and this challenge is consequently worthy of filing, it is the broader context that i think may be of some interest to the ccla. you can't justify my situation under s. (1). you just can't. it's too absurd. and, whether the prints are destroyed or not, i have *already* suffered from a loss of mobility rights. if it takes a year to have them destroyed, then that is a year of mobility rights that have been lost. if it is going to take that long to have the prints destroyed in this context, then the law shouldn't have allowed for them to have been taken in the first place. a ruling at a high enough court could strike down the identification of criminals act by following a precedent in morgantaler, if the rcmp refuses to provide for destructions on a timely basis. and, i do think that speeding up the process of a full file destruction for the wrongfully or frivolously accused is something that the ccla would find some interest in aligning itself with.

i am currently awaiting a response on my request and will not know how to proceed until it arrives. judicial review is the most direct route to superior court. but, even if they approve the request, i could still challenge the law on the basis of the length of time required to wait for the destruction - using morgantaler as a template.

if the ccla would like to involve itself, it would probably be best to get involved from the start.