I'm going to start with section 8 of the charter because it seems that this one touches on so many pressing topics, especially when it comes to people protecting their children or their home. 

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. - Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 8

Annotations from the courts

There are hundreds or perhaps thousands of court cases that have ruled on these sections.  I'm only going to share a few highlights.  It is still up to you to do your own research.  I AM not a lawyer and I am sharing for educational purposes only.  In the end, you are responsible for your own life and it is up to you to educate yourself further.  I've made some highlights to direct the reader to the key point of the ruling.

"Thus an assessment must be made as to whether in a particular situation the public's interest in being left alone by government must give way to the government's interest in intruding on the individual's privacy in order to advance its goals, notably those of law enforcement. The purpose in this section of protecting individuals from unjustified state intrusions upon their privacy requires a means of preventing unjustified searches before they happen, not simply of determining, after the fact, whether they ought to have occurred in the first place. This can only be accomplished by a system of prior authorization, not one of subsequent validation." ... "Since the purpose of the requirement of prior authorization is to provide an opportunity, before the event, for the conflicting interests of the state and the individual to be assessed, so that the individual's right of privacy will be breached only where the appropriate standard has been met and the interests of the state are demonstrably superior, it is necessary for the person authorizing the search to be able to assess the evidence as to whether that standard has been met in an entirely neutral and impartial manner and, while this person need not be a judge, he must at a minimum be capable of acting judicially." ... "the standard which must be met before a search should be authorized is the establishment upon oath of reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that there is evidence to be found at the place of the search."   -   Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, 14 C.C.C. (3d) 97, 11 D.L.R. (4th) 641. (Supreme Court of Canada)

My interpretation:  Everyone has heard that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission?  Well, what the Supreme Court is saying here is that the police need to ask for permission first (prior authorization) and that permission must meet specific criteria and be under oath!  To ensure that happens, they have the burden of making sure those searches are justified BEFORE they happen.  This is supposed to take place to ensure that the balance between state and personal interests are balanced.  

"A so-called "perimeter search", in which the police officer trespassed onto the accused's property and attempted to peer into the windows in an effort to confirm suspicions that the accused was cultivating marijuana in his residence, is a search within the meaning of this section." ... "A warrantless perimeter search, done merely upon suspicion, is not authorized by the search provisions of the Narcotic Control Act and constitutes a violation of this section of the Charter: R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3, 61 C.C.C. (3d) 207, 1 C.R. (4th) 62, 51 B.C.L.R. (2d) 157, 50 C.R.R. 285. 

  A "knock-on" investigation, in which the police attended at the suspect's door in the hope that, when the suspect opened the door, they would smell marijuana, is a search within the meaning of this section. The occupier of a residential dwelling is deemed to grant the public permission to approach the door and knock. However, the implied invitation to knock extends no further than is required to permit convenient communication with the occupant of the dwelling, and only those activities that are reasonably associated with this purpose are authorized by the implied license to knock. Individuals in the position of the accused have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the approach to their home that is waived for the purpose of facilitating communication with the public. Where members of the public, including police, exceed the terms of this waiver and approach the door for some unauthorized purpose, they exceed the implied invitation and approach the door as intruders: R. v. Evans, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8, 104 C.C.C. (3d) 23, 45 C.R. (4th) 210, 113 W.A.C. 81, 33 C.R.R. (2d) 248, 191 N.R. 327. 

My Interpretation:  Most people don't realize that the public, which includes police officers, DO have an implied consent to knock on your door from you.  That implied consent can be revoked by putting up a gate and signage to remove that consent.  That way, if they want to even knock on your door, they would need a warrant to enter the property.  I've put up a locked gate and that helps solve all kinds of problems.  If anybody breaches that gate, it is no longer trespass, but instead is break and enter.

 "In the instant case, the accused had put his garbage at or near his property line and, accordingly, there was no manifestation of a continuing assertion of privacy or control. In so doing, he had abandoned his privacy interest in the information contained in the garbage." - R. v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, 82 W.C.B. (2d) 312  

My Interpretation:  Don't put your garbage near the fence and make sure there is NO information in the garbage.  In fact, I would burn all the paper, compost the organic material and reduce or eliminate all plastic so that nothing leaves the property!  

  In weighing evidence relied on by the police to justify a warrantless search, the court must consider whether the information predicting the commission of a criminal offence was compelling; where that information was based on an informer's tip, whether that source was credible; and whether the information was corroborated by a police investigation prior to making the decision to conduct the search. Weaknesses in one of these three areas may to some extent be compensated by strengths in the other two. Police are also entitled to take into account the accused's past record and reputation provided that the reputation is related to the ostensible reasons for the search. If the reputation of the suspect was based on hearsay rather than police familiarity with the suspect, its veracity cannot be assumed. It is not necessary for the police to confirm each detail in an informer's tip so long as the sequence of events actually observed conforms sufficiently to the anticipated pattern to remove the possibility of innocent coincidence. On the other hand, the level of verification required may be higher where the police rely on an informer whose credibility cannot be assessed or where fewer details are provided and the risk of innocent coincidence is greater: R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140, 52 C.C.C. (3d) 193. 

My Interpretation:  It is this type of due diligence that the police and CPS must weigh, but frequently ignore!  Again, the burden is on them and they must ensure, especially with a tipster, the credibility of the information, the informer or do their own investigation.  However, most times this due diligence is bypassed.  

"As a general proposition surreptitious electronic surveillance of an individual by an agency of the state constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure under s. 8."  ...  "Rather, the regulation of electronic surveillance protects against the more insidious danger inherent in allowing the state in its unfettered discretion to record and transmit our words. It is unacceptable in a free society that agents of the state be free to use this technology at their sole discretion: R. v. Duarte, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30, 53 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 71 O.R. (2d) 575n, 103 N.R. 86. 

My Interpretation:  The state has no business collecting and processing all our electronic information.  That violates section 8 of the charter, so hands off!

So what happens if they do violate the charter?  Feudal serfs have a couple options.  The first option is to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and if one is facing charges, then file a charter violation petition with the court.  The court must then stop all proceedings until the charter challenge has been heard.  Again, I would recommend talking to a lawyer or doing your own research before taking any action.  With that said, the duty is on each individual to ensure that the state does not violate the Charter.  If people refuse to confront the state, then the Charter turns into fire starter and we might as well just call it a day and resign to being slaves.  

I welcome comments, feedback and discussion on this post.  I only scratched the surface as there are lots of other aspects to this section.  But if people don't know what the state can or cannot do, then how are you going to hold them accountable for their actions?  It is up to you to know this stuff, but they do not teach it in school.  I wonder why?  

With all that said, this only impacts feudal serfs.  I don't depend on the Charter as it is a 'benefit' from the state. The benefit is the 'law' protecting me and I don't want or desire their protection as the 'cost' of that protection is much too high.  I also feel that the moral and ethical standards that I work hard to live my life by are much higher than what they can provide.  I also reject to the use of coercion and force that is associated with this whole process.  This document is a shield to protect people from the coercive violence of the state ... but there are limits to that protection.  If the states interests are greater, then they will steam role over the individual.  What I found interesting is that the courts rarely outline what those state interests are! Some court rulings suggest that they are responsible for the public and to protect those who are vulnerable.  Being self-governing means that we can no longer be vulnerable so that we can reject their desire to protect.  I don't want their protection as it is violent, abusive and coercive.  Rejecting the state to self-govern also means rejecting the charter.  I spoke of this in my last post where I introduced what 'rights' are and the Charter.

Again, now that you have gone through this process, please go visit my last two posts regarding 'Don't Talk to the Police'.  It should all start to fit together now.  

https://steemit.com/ungrip/@wwf/don-t-talk-to-the-police-part-two

https://steemit.com/ungrip/@wwf/don-t-talk-to-the-police