We’re not going to answer all of the case study questions for you because some of these questions are for you to decide for yourself. But, here are some ideas:

1. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that the Charter applies to searches in public schools [R. v. M. (R.M.)].
   
   
2. Yes. Bob’s right not to be subjected to arbitrary search and seizure is being violated (section 8 of the Charter) because the searches are not being conducted on the basis of reasonable grounds.

1. Yes, this is a civil liberties issue. Jeannie is expressing herself through her clothes, so her right to free expression is involved (section 2b of the Charter).
   
   
2. Yes, employers can set “reasonable” dress codes (ie. they can’t demand that you work in your underwear unless they can show that this is a reasonable need for you to walk around in your underwear). Again, the Charter does not apply in situations between two private parties, but human rights legislation might apply.

1. Freedom of expression (section 2b of the Charter).

1. Possibly the right not to be subjected to arbitrary search and seizure (section 8 of the Charter). You might even be able to come up with a creative section 7 argument that the use of the dog invades your privacy. You may also want to think about advising your clients about section 1 of the Charter, as a court may find that the use of the dog is a reasonable limit on students’ privacy rights. This is also something to think about.

1. Ravi and his parents should consider discussing the situation with the principal immediately and explain that he was not aware of the policy. If this doesn’t work, Ravi and his parents could consider appealing the decision to the school board.

1. You could try the following Charter-based arguments:
   • The cameras offend the students’ rights to privacy generally (section 7)
     
     
   • The cameras offend the students’ right to free expression (section 2b), because no one will be willing to say or do things that the camera might pick up.