The Cannabis Act 2018 - A reviews and analysis by John W. Conroy QC.
Judicial History in the courts - Re Constitutionality and Prohibition
1. Constitutionality of prohibition
See the R. v. Caine Archive, including the Supreme Court of Canada Decisions (23/12/03) in:
2. Constitutionality of Mandatory Minimums
- R v Elliott - CDSA s.7(2)(b)(i) - 6 months for 5 to 200 plant production struck down as violating s.12 Charter;
- And is not saved by S. 1 Charter - Elliott - 2016 BCSC 1200
- Unconstitutionality upheld by the BC Court of Appeal - 2017 BCCA 214 R. v. Elliott
- Canada did not appeal or seek leave to appeal this decision to the SCC
3. Sentencing pending ‘Legalization’ and the unavailability of house arrest (CSO’s)
Additional detailed information and cases are contained in the Library under the heading Drug Laws.
The current regulations pursuant to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and likely ongoing regulations under the Cannabis Act 2018;
The Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR), effective August 24, 2016;
The Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR) since repealed, but essentially forming Part 2 of the ACMPR above;
The Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) since repealed, but essentially forming Part 1 of the ACMPR above.
Judicial History in the courts
R v. Parker
The government must provide by way of an exemption to the CDSA, “reasonable access” to Cannabis as medicine for those who are “medically approved"
- R. v. Parker (10 December 1997), per Judge Sheppard, Toronto Registry (Ont. Prov. Div.);
- R. v. Parker  O.J. No. 2787 (Ont. C.A.);
Allard v. Canada
- Manson J Injunctive Order March 12, 2014 - MMAR Patients and Designated producers permits valid September 30, 2013 with possession permits valid March 21, 2014 can continue to possess and produce pending trial;
- FCA Appeal and Cross appeal - Government appeal dismissed, and Patients appeal allowed and sent back to Manson J for clarification;
- Manson J. further Order - initial order clarified and reaffirmed;
- Phelan J. Motion to Vary injunction July 15,2015 - dismissed as premature;
- Reasons for Judgement of Phelan J. - Prohibiting medically approved patients from being able to produce for themselves or have a designated grower do so for them restricted their entitlement to "reasonable access" thereby violating the patients section 7 Charter rights and the MMPR was declared unconstitutional, but the declaration suspended for 6 months to enable the government to make the appropriate regulatory changes. The injunction under 1 above is continued “until the court orders otherwise.”
- Phelan J. Final Order;