Right to privacy shouldn't depend on property, say Winnipeg anti-poverty groups

Anti-poverty advocates in Winnipeg will have a say in a critical Supreme Court of Canada case that will impactthe privacy rights of peoplewithout a home.

Four organizations have fileda written submission as intervenors in a Ontariocase questioning whetherpolice officershadtheright to enter a backyard without permission and eventually arrest a man they happened to meet.

The appeal to be heard by Canada's highest court hangs on whether the right to privacy only exists where people possess property rights,said AllisonFenske, staff attorney with the Public Interest Law Centre in Winnipeg.

"What does it really mean when that expectation of privacy seems tobe attached to your ability to control property?" asked Fenske, who is helping represent the coalition on apro-bonobasis.

"If you leave your privacy rights at your door, what happens if you don't have a door?"

Backyard entry

The Supreme Court will consider the appeal of Tom Le,a young Asian man who was socializing in afenced backyard when he was approached by police officers in 2014. The cops were looking for other individuals when they walked through the backyard, uninvited, andmet Le and his friends.During the conversation, the officers sought identification andbecame concerned thatLe was carrying a weapon. He was arrested and his weapon and drugs were seized.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled thatLe did not have anexpectation of privacy since he was simply a guest.

"Our clients would say that [decision] fails to recognize that there's many peoplewho don't have homes or aren't in control of their own homes," Fenske said.

The Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, End Homelessness Winnipeg, Canada Without Poverty and Canadian Mental Health Association are parties to theintervention, sent to the federal court on Tuesday. Le'sappeal will be heard on Oct. 12 with a decision to follow.

Authority figures

Damon Johnston, president of the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, feelsitisimportant to stand up against increased state intervention.

He said marginalized groups like Indigenous people aredisproportionately linked toauthority figures, such as police officersand child welfare organizations, with whom they've historically had a fraught relationship. He questions if offering more leeway to people in poweris a positive step.

Fenskesaid her clients are invested in thecase because they want to show how people living in poverty can lack control and resources over theirlives.

"Privacy shouldn't be something that only the wealthy can afford."

More from CBCManitoba: