OTTAWA - Longshoremen have lost a legal bid to contest marine security regulations they call an unwarranted invasion of their privacy.
The Supreme Court of Canada announced Thursday that it won't hear a challenge from the International Longshore and Warehouse Union of Canada.
At issue was the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling that the Marine Transportation Security Regulations do not violate the employees' constitutional guarantees.
The regulations, which allow authorities to screen marine workers with sensitive jobs, were brought in after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The information gathered from workers includes details about the employees, their spouses and friends, as well as other personal background.
Port workers area also subject to a criminal record check and, if deemed necessary, a security assessment by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
The union and several local units, mainly in Vancouver, objected and took their case to court.
Calls to the union seeking comment were not returned.
Mark Erdman, of Port Metro Vancouver, said he couldn't comment directly on the high court's decision.
But he said it will be "business as usual" at the port, where personnel have been undergoing security clearance checks for a few years.
"We've been doing the security screenings," he said, adding that the measures had to be put into place in order to comply with international security standards.
"We have to have security background checks for anyone who is accessing secure areas of the port."
In introducing the new security measures, the federal government pointed out that background checks have been in place at airports since 1985.
However, in the statement of claim filed with B.C. Supreme Court, the union said the regulations are "unconstitutionally vague and overbroad" and open the door to differential treatment for employees based on their marital and family status.
It also said they restrict port workers' rights "to associate with various organizations and groups for social, cultural, political, religious and ideological reasons."