|
|
 |
Info for Medical Marijuana Litigators: More Canadian Court Decisions
- Regina v. Richardson (North Vancouver Registry No. 33558): The court excused the defendant for transporting marijuana intended for use by compassion club members.
- Regina v. Czolowski (Prov. Ct. B.C., Vancouver Registry No. 338-1-D, July 14, 1998): The court imposed a conditional discharge with a period of probation for one year with only statutory terms, on a 44-year-old man with no previous criminal record who, suffering from glaucoma, grew a large amount of marijuana for personal use and sold some of it to the Compassion Club Society.
- Regina v. Lieph (B.C.C.A., Victoria Registry No. V00939, July 17, 1989): An appeal from discharges granted to an accused following his guilty please to charges of cultivating and possession of marihuana was dismissed. The accused had been found growing some 74 plants with a total weight of approximately 23 lbs. He was 27 years of age, had no prior criminal record, and had submitted in the Court below that the marihuana was used only for the purpose of extracting its oil, which he applied as a lotion to his skin for a condition arising from injury suffered in an explosion some time before.
- Regina v. Parker (2000 W.C.B.J. LEXIS 10970, 75 C.R.R. (2d) 233, 47 W.C.B. (2d) 116 (July 31, 2000): The court held that existing
exemptions to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act were unconstitutional.
- Wakeford v. Canada (1998 O.J. No. 3522; (1999) O.J. No. 1574 On. Ct. of Justice (Gen. Div.): Mr. Wakeford applied, pursuant to section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and under section 24(1) of the Charter, to be granted an exemption by the court from the prohibitions in sections 4 and 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In the first of the two proceedings the Court found that the applicant was a bona fide sufferer from a medical condition (AIDS) and derived specific symptomatic relief from smoking marihuana. The Court also found that to apply the prohibitions in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act against this applicant violated his section 7 rights to liberty and security of the person. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that such a denial of his rights was "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" because, under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Mr. Wakeford could be granted an exemption by the Minister and the Court should not intervene unless it could be shown that the Ministerial power under section 56, in reality, "doesn't exist or is not being exercised properly". Mr. Wakeford was back before the Court in the second of the two hearings and, on May 10, 1999, the Court ruled that it was satisfied, principally on new evidence that no real protocol exists in the Ministry of Health for considering exemptions on behalf of those who use marihuana for medical purposes. There being no likelihood of such a protocol being developed in a sufficiently timely way to benefit Mr. Wakeford, the Court granted an "interim" exemption from the application for sub-sections 4 and 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act until the Minister has given consideration to his application for exemption under section 56.
|
Provide Feedback on this Page:
|
|
|
|
