How have courts interpreted privacy guarantees in the context of inspections in the securities industry?

Similarly, in R. v. Potash (1994), 1994 CanLII 92 (SCC), 91 C.C.C. (3d) 315 at 325-326 (S.C.C.) La Forest J. stated that it is “impossible” to apply the strict guarantees set out in Hunter v. Southam, which were developed in the criminal law context, to a regulatory context where state inspection of premises and documents is routine and expected, as is the case in the securities industry. At pp. 325-326 La Forest J. said: This court has pointed out on several occasions that the scope of a constitutional guarantee, like the balancing of the collective and individual rights underlying it, varies with the context. … In a context in which their occupations are extensively regulated by the state, the reasonable expectations of privacy employers may have with respect to documents whose content is specifically provided for by the Act, or the premises where an activity subject to specific standards is conducted, are considerably lower. … It is thus impossible, without further qualification, to apply the strict guarantees set out in Hunter v. Southam Inc., supra, which were developed in a very different context. The underlying purpose of inspection is to ensure that a regulatory statute is being complied with. It is often accompanied by an information aspect designed to promote the interests of those on whose behalf the statute was enacted. The exercise of the powers of inspection does not carry with it the stigma normally associated with criminal investigations and their consequences are less draconian. While regulatory statutes incidentally provide for offences, they are enacted primarily to encourage compliance. It may be that in the course of inspections those responsible for enforcing a statute will uncover facts that point to a violation, but this possibility does not alter the underlying purpose behind the exercise of the powers of inspection. The same is true when the enforcement is prompted by a complaint. However, a complaint system is often provided for by the legislature itself as it is a practical means not only of checking whether contraventions of the legislation have occurred but also of deterring them.