Wednesday, April 13, 2011

The Ontario Marijuana Laws Ruling

An Ontario Superior Court judgment yesterday has struck down Canada's marijuana laws:
[Justice] Taliano declared the [federal medical marijuana] program to be invalid, as well as the criminal laws prohibiting possession and production of cannabis. He suspended his ruling for three months, giving Ottawa until mid-July to fix the program or face the prospect of effectively legalizing possession and production of cannabis.
What makes this ruling interesting is that most previous constitutional challenges to the Criminal Code provisions concerning possession/production of marijuana have emanated from the concept that criminal laws restricting its sale and use violate the principles of fundamental justice on the grounds that marijuana use does no harm to society or other people, and therefore criminal punishment for its use infringed individual s.7 rights to liberty under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms since a criminal law that is shown to be arbitrary or irrational will infringe s.7.

However, the courts have not been particularly impressed with this line of argument, as exemplified in R. v. Malmo-Levine, where the Supreme Court stated that marijuana can alter mental function and can lead to health risks as a result of its use, and that simply because Parliament has chosen to criminalize marijuana use and not criminalize tobacco or alcohol as well doesn't make the criminalization of marijuana arbitrary or irrational, as Parliament can pursue its public health goals at its own discretion.

What sets this case apart, interestingly, is the federal medical marijuana regime. The defendant in this case, Matthew Mernagh, used marijuana to treat his chronic pain resulting from a number of ailments, but could not find a doctor willing to help him apply for a medical marijuana license, so he grew his own and was arrested for it. Mernagh also presented a number of witnesses from across the country who testified to similar experiences in their inability to get medical licenses for marijuana use.

Justice Taliano stated that if legitimately sick people cannot access needed medical marijuana through legal means, that criminal punishment for them seeking marijuana through illegal channels cannot be proper. (Without having access to the decision itself, this seems to suggest that Justice Taliano found a criminal law that is applicable for the pursuit of legal activity to be an irrational or arbitrary one.) This is worth noting as it seems to flow from the Supreme Court's ruling in Chaoulli v. Quebec, and particularly, the assertions of Chief Justice Mclachlin and Justice Major that where the government puts a scheme in place to provide health care, that it must comply with the Charter in doing so.

Unlike in Malmo-Levine and previous marijuana challenges, however, due to the way this case was reasoned it seems likely that remedies exist to the federal government beyond simple legalization of marijuana: a different medical marijuana license application process, for example, or the government undertaking to provide doctors greater education on the benefits of marijuana as a prescription medicine and when it is appropriate to prescribe. Alternately, the government could simply decide that medical marijuana isn't a policy goal it wishes to pursue any further and discontinue the medical marijuana program entirely, and effectively reinstate those laws criminalizing marijuana possession and production.

Although this would be a harsh answer to the justice's concerns, it would likely comply with both the Charter and case law on the issue.

- Christopher Bird, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

2 comments:

  1. This law is bogus. The Supreme Court has ignored the harm principle required in criminal law, and adjudicated jailing people, absent harm, on speculation of mental harm only. It has also ignored its duty to intervene when parliament introduces unlawful legislation. Fact is, over one hundred studies show marijuana to be safe. 100%

    These criminal laws are contrary to our charter but unfortunately, our judges have forgotten their purpose to protect people from bad government.

    It is these rulings from our courts, and abject compliance from our legal professionals, that brings the laughable concept of Canadian Justice into ill repute.
    Don

    5 million die per year from cigarettes.
    1.8 million die from booze
    Both are legal.

    Our Supreme Court says Marijuana should be illegal because they speculate mental harm, when science shows none. In fact science shows much good.

    They are either stupid, or corrupt. And we are certainly simplistic and incompetent to support such poor legal reasoning, and support a total abdication of duty by our highest court to ideological considerations...

    Don

    ReplyDelete
  2. Its illegal cuz big businesses that are scared of the competition it provides hemp is the strongest natural fiber on earth and ony takes a few months to grow do u understand what it would mean to big companies if people started widely using hemp for all sorts of stuff an the fibers are so easy to seperate people would just start makin their own shyt at home death to the economy some people think its bad but i think its the only way 2 b free

    ReplyDelete

Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of Wise Law Blog and the writers thereof. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed without notification.