Education is Protection


Author: Brian Carlisle
University of British Columbia
Student # 59192054
Course: Canadian Constitutional Law 346
Professor Margot Young
Subject: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Controlled Drugs and Substances act, Marijuana Medical Access Regulations, Declaration of Invalidity, Abuse of Process.
Location: Canada
( word count 5,386)


1. Early years …………………………………………………….3
2. Background of Cannabis laws……………………………….8
3. The Parker case and the return of medicinal cannabis…...13
4. Summary of court cases…………………………………….16
5. Author’s Autobiography …………….………………………30
6. Appendix……………………………………………………..33

Chapter I: Early years

For thousands of years prior to its prohibition in the 20th century, cannabis was used as a medicine throughout the world. During the 19th century the potent extract of cannabis was one of the top three most prescribed medical agents in the United States. Until the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, cannabis, being a powerful topical analgesic, muscle relaxant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-spasmodic agent, was found in virtually all fistulas, corn and mustard plasters, muscle ointments, and fibrosis poultices. The United States Pharmacopeia listed cannabis until 1942, after which it was removed under political pressure. The Pharmacopeia recommended cannabis for the treatment of over 100 illnesses, such as: fatigue, fits of coughing, rheumatism, asthma, delirium tremens, migraine headaches, and the cramps and depression associated with menstruation. In 1890, Dr. J. Russell Reynolds, Fellow of the Royal Society and the Physician in Order to Her Majesty's Household, stated in the journal Lancet that cannabis is ``one of the most valuable medicines we possess'' He even prescribed cannabis to Queen the late Victoria for PMS. In 1898 Sir William Osler, Professor of Medicine at the University of Oxford, stated that for migraine headaches, cannabis ``is probably the most satisfactory remedy’’ During the 20th century cannabis has been discovered to be an effective treatment for countless more ailments. For example, based on major research, Dr. Van Sim concluded that "marijuana ... is probably the most potent anti-epileptic known to medicine today" More powerful than standard anti-epileptic drugs, cannabis totally eliminated epileptic seizures in children not responding to surgery or other legal drug therapies. One such legal treatment used to treat epileptic children was drilling holes into their frontal lobes. Dr. Robert Hepler, Neuro-opthalmologist with the Jules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA, published a major study in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1971 demonstrating that cannabis lowers intraocular pressure in the eyes. Glaucoma, a leading cause of blindness, is a condition in which intraocular pressures build up causing optical damage. Cannabis has been proven to reduce these pressures far better than legal drugs, allowing glaucoma patients to keep their vision so long as they use cannabis regularly. In the early 1970's both the Canadian and American Medical Associations agreed that marijuana is not a narcotic. The Le Dain Commission was allotted in Canada to undertake a complete and factual study of marijuana use and it's effects. The results of the study were presented to the government after four years and four million dollars worth of research. Like the New York La Guardia study of 1944, the Le Dain Commission recognized that the use of marijuana is not linked to violent crime in any way. It also concluded that prohibitionary laws have only served to create a sub-culture with little respect for the law and law enforcement, as well as diverting law enforcement capability, clogging the judicial system, and providing a base of funds for organized crime. The recommendations of the Le Dain Commission ranged from outright legalization to small fines for marijuana use.

Research at the Harvard Medical School published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated conclusively that cannabis is the most effective anti-nausea agent available. It has been used in this regard to eliminate the violent nausea and vomiting experienced by cancer patents undergoing chemotherapy. Cancer ward workers have been known to turn a blind-eye on cannabis smoking in the hospital. Based on extensive anecdotal evidence, cannabis, with its known appetite-stimulating effects -- described by users as "getting the munchies" -- is known to counter the "wasting syndrome" of full-blown AIDS. During this syndrome an AIDS patient, loosing all appetite, quickly loses weight in a free-fall to death. In case after case, AIDS patients have totally reversed their weight loss with the use of cannabis. Marijuana is one of the oldest natural herbs known to human beings. It is also one of the safest, as it is impossible to consume enough to produce a toxic effect in the body. "Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality...Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death...In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity...In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume...Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." - DEA Administrative Law Judge, FL Young, 1988.

In 2002 Canada’s Senator Nolin’s Report on the Non Medicinal Uses of Marijuana had similar findings also calling for the legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana identically to that of alcohol and tobacco. Without political libido it was only the courts that let the cannabis camel’s head under the tent started the beginning to the end for almost a century of unconstitutional cannabis laws.

Chapter II: Background of Cannabis laws

The prohibition of marijuana through the enactment of the current and past marijuana laws was nothing more than the irrational attempt to re-litigate a failed prohibition law originally known as the Volstead acts which legislated the prohibited of the drug alcohol in the 1920’s. Canada of the past would never have contemplate the enactment of any alcohol or any other such prohibition type laws and throughout the US alcohol prohibition period Canada amounted vast amounts of wealth from its domestic and its illegal US exportation alcohol industries. History demonstrates that Canada has never before followed blindly any unjust foreign law or policy. Canada was known as the underground railroad terminal for run away slaves, it gave conscientious objectors and draft dodgers the chance to live their life free from killing. But with Cannabis Canada has become little more than mice following the Pied pipe Uncle Sam’s war on the devil weed.

Canada’s first cannabis law was called the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act of 1923 then renamed the Narcotic Control act in 1985. The relevant provisions of the act, impugned insofar as they relate to the simple possession of marihuana, stated:
3. (1) Except as authorized by this Act or the regulations, no person shall have a narcotic in his possession.
(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) on summary conviction for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both and, for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.
Seven years can you believe it just for simple possession of Cannabis! Hard to fathom in today’s standards but nevertheless many Canadians did spend seven years behind bars for this unconstitutional law. Even some famous ones such as CBC radio personality Rosie Rowbothum. Who holds the record for the longest incarceration for simple possession yup 7 years!!!! These federal statutes like their alcohol predecessors have also shaped a sophisticated criminal underworld and a plethora of corrupt bureaucrats at a level in the Multi-trillions if dollar. That would leave even Scar face himself breathless. Carleton University sociology professor Florence Kellner who has been monitoring the legal debate around pot since the 1970s believes that arrest levels for possession will probably continue to rise depending on where police focus their activities, she says. And debate about the laws will continue. Kellner says the issue of what to do about pot laws is “a political hot potato” between the federal government and the police, and there is added pressure from the United States. In the early 1970s, the Canadian Royal Commission on Non-Medical Use of Drugs recommended legalizing pot. Parliament even tried unsuccessfully in 1996 to relax pot laws by replacing criminal penalties with fines for possession of small amounts.
"The political will isn’t there, and it’s politically dangerous for any incumbent politician to bring (legalization) forward as a cause,” Kellner says. "It’s maybe two steps forward and two steps back,” she says.

This analogy from the perspective of the law enforcement community could not ring truer. In 1920, one year before MacKenzie King became Prime Minister of Canada, the Opium and Drug Branch was established by the Department of Health, and was put in charge of enforcing narcotics legislation. The RCMP worked very closely with the Drug Branch, and their service was rewarded with ever more lenient laws regarding their right to search and seize the property of suspected drug users. During this period three states in the US had made cannabis illegal, all without the benefit of any scientific studies. These laws were put in place to harass and deport the minority groups who favored different drugs than those of the European population. These unfounded and racist laws were to find their way into Canada, assisted by Maclean's Magazine, which in the early 1920's ran a series of articles about the illicit drug trade in Canada. This level of unconscionable cannabis persecution continued relentlessly until finally one day an epileptic man from Toronto decided he could stand it no longer. His case ended the Narcotic Control Act ushered in the 1996 Controlled Drugs and Substances act and returned medical marijuana to Canada.

Chapter III: The Parker case and the return of medicinal cannabis

Terrance “Terry” Parker suffered from a very severe form of epilepsy since he was a young child. For close to 40 years he had experienced frequent serious and potentially life-threatening seizures. His physicians had attempted to control these seizures through surgical procedures including drilling holes into his frontal lobe as well as other various conventional toxic medications. The surgery a failure left him feeling surgically assaulted and the conventional medication were only moderately successful. After lengthy research and trial and error he had found that by smoking marihuana he could substantially reduce the incidence of seizures. Since of course he had no legal source of marihuana, he was left with the choice of either associating with the illicit “black market’ or he had to grow it himself. On two occasions, the police searched his home and seized the marihuana. He was first charged with cultivating marihuana under the Narcotic Control Act. By the time of the second investigation, that Act had been repealed and he was charged with Possession of marihuana under the new Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The former Narcotic Control Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act both prohibit under threat of imprisonment the possession and cultivation of marihuana. That prohibition is theoretically not absolute. Both statutes contemplate that drugs like marihuana may have medicinal value and therefore should be available through a regulatory process. If a drug receives the necessary regulatory approval, it can be made available to the public through a physician’s prescription. Parker decided to fight the charges against him by attempting to show that the prohibition on the cultivation and possession of marihuana in the two statutes were unconstitutional. The court declared the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be invalid, and further declared that had the offence of cultivation had been challenged then that provision would also be invalid. The court then suspended the declaration of invalidity for a period of twelve months from the release of their reasons to provide time for the government to rewrite the law.

The court then ordered the respondent exempt from the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act during the period of suspended invalidity for possession of marihuana for his medical needs. The court also read-in a medical exemption into the former Narcotic Control Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and ordered the return of his seized cannabis plants.

Chapter IV: Summary of court cases

Throughout the Parker case and the Governments invalidation period another Superior Court case was working its way through the Ontario courts but this time on behalf of a Dying AIDS patient who was not charged criminally yet had just as much of a constitutional right to medical marijuana. James Wakeford’s was the first application for a temporary constitutional exemption from the operation of the possession and cultivation provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Wakeford was first diagnosed as HIV-positive in 1989. Since that time he had undergone chemotherapy that produces debilitating side effects, including nausea and loss of appetite. He had tried different medications to relieve these side effects but finds that smoking marihuana provides the best relief for him. He uses marihuana, under a physician’s supervision, to combat nausea and to stimulate appetite. He believed that conventional medication was not effective. In particular, Marinol, a synthetic and legally available version of one of the active ingredients in marihuana causes side effects that can be virtually unbearable. In June 1999, the appellant was granted an exemption to grow marihuana under s. 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In the same month, he sent a letter to the Minister with this request:
I would like to apply for a grower’s license or permit so I can supply not only my needs but those of others as well. I would like to recruit a botanist and an experienced grower to develop strains and pedigrees for clinical trials.

Even with an exemption from two CDSA criminal provisions Wakeford was still no closer to his constitutional right to medical marijuana. Because his health was to unstable to grow the marijuana and the only supply in Canada was through the illicit criminal market. At the appeal the government mislead the court into believing it was in the process of securing a domestic supply of marijuana and was thus able to avoid further section 7 charter violations for the lack of supply issue. However the Justices did note that in R. v. Latimer (2001), 150 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (S.C.C.) the court seemed to leave open the possibility of a constitutional exemption if the application of valid legislation would result in the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of s. 12 of the Charter. Section 12 was not raised in this case. Had it been, than a domestic, medi-care covered supply medical marijuana would already be available at all Canadian pharmacies. For reasons unbeknownst to this author it was not. This error will be rectified in the ongoing charter challenge test case which I am lead counsel on Carlisle and Krist v. HMTQ.

Realizing that the Wakeford and Parker cases needed further arguments to challenge the cannabis laws the same lawyers combined Parker with several other plaintiffs including licensed patients, medical growers and even a Toronto compassion club director to attack the cannabis laws on multiple fronts.

Hitzig v. Canada

In Hitzig the court found there exists a strong body of opinion supporting the claim that marihuana offers some individuals invaluable relief from a variety of debilitating symptoms associated with serious long-term illnesses such as AIDS, cancer and epilepsy. This support is based largely on personal experience and anecdotal evidence of individuals and their doctors. In 1999 the Government began to develop a policy with respect to the use of marihuana for medical purposes. That policy is a work in progress. Some of those who are seriously ill and gain significant relief from some of their symptoms by using marihuana see the government policy as a mean-spirited and grudging attempt to do only what the law absolutely demands. This viewpoint is understandable but ignores the complexity of the problem faced by the Government. On the one hand, the courts, relying on evidence of individuals' personal experiences and anecdotal evidence have determined that some seriously ill persons derive substantial medical benefit from the use of marihuana. The pronouncements in these cases reflect the normal process of judicial fact-finding made in the context of an adjudicative process based on the evidence and arguments led by the parties in a given case. These factual findings have in turn provided the basis for the legal conclusion that s. 7 of the Charter requires that a medical exemption be carved out of any criminal prohibition against the possession of marihuana. In developing a medical marihuana policy, the Government must respect individual constitutional rights as defined by the courts but, at the same time, be guided by the opinions of its medical experts concerning the health and safety of its citizens. As a legal policy, the medical marihuana policy must meet the requirements of s. 7 of the Charter.

The Hitzig applicants respond that the MMAR, combined with the criminal prohibitions against possession, distribution and cultivation in the CDSA, impact on both their liberty interest and their right to security of the person. They argue that the Government's scheme significantly limits their ability to make fundamental personal medical choices involving the treatment of very serious illnesses. The Hitzig applicants argue that the absence of a legal source of supply from which their legitimate medical needs can be filled is a direct result of state action that permits the lawful possession of marihuana for medical purposes, but does not provide for a legal supply to meet that recognized need. They contend that the absence of a legal source of supply is a direct result of both the MMAR and the criminalization of the conduct of anyone who would supply medical marihuana to individuals entitled to possess it for medical purposes. Lastly, the Hitzig applicants contend that a scheme, which drives seriously ill people who have a demonstrated medical need for marihuana to the black market to meet that need, is obviously and profoundly contrary to the principles of fundamental justice and cannot be saved by s. 1. In R. v. Parker, supra, this court declared the prohibition invalid as of July 31, 2001 if by that date the Government had not enacted a constitutionally sound medical exemption. Our decision in this case confirms that it did not do so. Having found that the MMAR do not create a constitutionally valid medical exemption to the criminal prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA, we must now shape a declaration under s. 52 of the Charter which responds to the constitutional shortcomings of the MMAR. We must then determine whether that order should be suspended. As we shall explain, we have concluded that a precisely targeted declaration is appropriate and that it should not be suspended. This decision reaffirmed the court position regarding medical marijuana but what about the prosecution of non medical marijuana users in light of the continued unconstitutionality of the CDSA. The answer to that question fell to a 16 year Ontario high school student known as “JP”.

R. v. J.P.

J.P. made application to Phillips J. to declare that s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, no longer prohibits simple possession of marihuana, and as a consequence thereof, Count 1 and 2 of the information did not disclose offences known to law. "The Applicant's submission distilled to its core, is that the Court of Appeal in Parker, having determined that s. 4(1) of the Act (as it applied to the possession of marihuana) was constitutionally invalid, and having suspended that finding for 12 months, had left Parliament with no choice but to amend or re-enact it (prior to lapse of the suspension) if Parliament were to preserve the prohibition on marihuana possession. As it turns out, Parliament did neither instead Regulations were enacted. In my view, that is entirely within Parliament's prerogative (i.e. Parliament could choose to do nothing and allow another mechanism, namely approval of a regulation by order-in council, to remedy the defect), provided that there is a correction addressing the underlying faults found in Parker. Therefore, since a statutory framework with guiding principles was not enacted within the period of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity, it follows in my view that the declaration is now effectively in place. In light of that analysis the young person's application must succeed."

As of July 31/01, s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as it related to marihuana was invalid. Section 4 includes the penalty section. "A statute which is of no force or effect confers no rights. In the absence of a direction to the contrary, a declaration that a law is of no force or effect, invalidates the law from the time when the Charter (here s. 15) came into force or the legislation was enacted, which ever is later. Since s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has not been re-enacted, as it relates to marihuana, there is no penalty in the act for simple possession of marihuana even if it had been prohibited by the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations. It is to be noted, that there are no penalty sections set out in the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations.

I think it safer to hold that no one shall be convicted of a crime unless the offence with which he is charged is recognized as such in the provisions of the Criminal Code, or can be established by the authority of some reported case as an offence known to the law. I think that if any course of conduct is now to be declared criminal, which has not up to the present been so regarded, such declaration should be made by Parliament and not by the Courts. However even with the Ontario courts continued position that the CDSA possession charge has been invalid since July 31 2001 other jurisdiction were continuing to charge and convict persons for this and all other CDSA offences. SO it was no surprise to hear the provinces one by one reaffirmation of the CDSA’s untimely demise.

R. V. Masse

Kurtis Lee Masse stands charged on information 62876-1, that on or about the 21st day of February, 2003 at or near the City of New Westminster, he did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, to wit: Cannabis (marihuana), contrary to Section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act The issue before the court was simply; is possession of cannabis (marihuana) an offence known to law in British Columbia? Counsel for Mr. Masse submitted that this court should apply the reasoning in reasons for judgment in Parker and Clay to find s.4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be of no force and effect with respect to marihuana since July 31, 2001 and apply the reasoning in reasons for judgment in J.P. to find that the invalidity cannot be cured by the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations. Counsel for Mr. Masse submits in the alternative, that this court should apply the reasons for judgment in Hitzig to find that the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations are themselves unconstitutional and inadequate to cure the invalidity of s. 4(1).
The Court agreed with the decision in Hitzig that the MMAR were inadequate for this purpose because, as long as there is no legal supply of marihuana for persons requiring it for medical use, the infringement on s. 7 Charter rights identified in Parker has not been cured. The enactment of the Marijuana Exemption (Food and Drugs Act) Regulations on July 8, 2003 may or may not address the concerns raised in Hitzig but came too late to have any effect on the declaration of invalidity in Parker. July 31, 2001 had, by that time, already come and gone, and the legislation had already been rendered invalid. Once invalid, it became a nullity and could not be resuscitated; it could only be re-enacted. It follows therefore, that there is no offence known to law at this time for simple possession of marihuana.

Queen v. Stavert

This was an appeal from a PEI provincial court decision where a stay of proceedings was imposed for the respondent for the offence of possession of marijuana contrary to section 4(1) of the CDSA on the basis that it did not disclose an offence known to law. There was no evidence adduced nor was there any plea entered by the accused. The issue before the court was whether the federal crown was bound by the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v. Parker, and the subsequent decisions in R. v. J.P. and Hitzig v. Canada. The defense argued that crown was estopped from arguing that its marijuana possession law is valid in Prince Edward Island when it has been declared invalid in a decision which, as a final judgment, binds it in Ontario? Does issue estoppel apply in this matter to preclude the Crown from re-litigating the issue of the validity of its legislation which was found to be invalid in Parker? And finally, even if issue estoppel does not apply, would it constitute an abuse of this court’s process if the Crown were permitted to re-litigate the issue which was finally determined in Parker when the Crown chose not to appeal the Parker decision? Judge Thompson found that issue estoppel was not available as no plea had yet been entered. He then addressed the issue of abuse of process. He found that the Ontario Court of Appeal in Parker had struck down s. 4 of the CDSA as it related to marihuana possession as of July 31, 2000, subject to a one-year suspension, to afford Parliament the opportunity to pass remedial legislation. He further found that Parliament had not complied with the remedy required by Parker, because the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) enacted on July 30, 2001, were held to be inadequate to save s.(4) by the courts in J. P. and Hitzig. He concluded that since the Ontario court ruling in Parker was in effect, the Federal Crown cannot be permitted to contend that this final judgment is restricted to the Province of Ontario, because to hold otherwise would permit the Federal Crown to re-litigate the same issue in every jurisdiction of Canada. He stressed the importance of the law having national application where the Federal Crown has jurisdiction, and pointed out that 1/3 of the country’s population residing in Ontario is immune from prosecution for possession of marihuana, while persons residing in other provinces are not, if the Crown’s position were accepted.

This in my view is one of those “clearest of cases” referred to in Jewitt where a stay of proceedings should be entered by this court in order
to avoid an abuse of its own process. All residents of Canada, wherever they are situated, are entitled, in fairness, to expect a uniformity of approach from the Federal Crown, wherever it performs its prosecutorial function. Until such time as the law is changed by Parliament, or the higher courts provide a ruling which will enable such approach, this charge involving the simple possession of marijuana will not proceed in this court.

R v. Clark

This was an application to have this charge dismissed, stayed, or held in abeyance, pending the final determination of the cases of Hitzig, J.P. from the Ontario Courts and now, most recently, Stavert[, a decision of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, all presently on appeal. Based on the decisions in these cases, Defense submitted that the possession of marihuana charge is an offence not known to law as a result of the Parker decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which declared Section 4(1) of the C.D.S.A. invalid because it failed to allow for the legal possession of marihuana for medical reasons; which was interpreted and followed in the J.P. case in which the Court found that the government’s response to the Parker decision failed to satisfy the intent of Justice Rosenberg in Parker and affirmed the invalidity of Section 4(1) of the C.D.S.A., as have the Courts in Barnes[, Hitzig and now Stavert.

Mr. Doughty further argues that to allow this prosecution to proceed would be an abuse of process; first, because of the state of flux of the law as the Parker decision was not appealed by the Crown; secondly, that simple possession of marihuana may soon be decriminalized, as noted in Stavert by Chief Judge Thompson where he acknowledged the September 2002 report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs has recommended that the Government of Canada amend the C.D.S.A. to create a legislated criminal exemption scheme for the production and sale of cannabis; and thirdly, that should this prosecution proceed, that it would be the Federal Crown’s fourth attempt to re-litigate the same issue.
The court was satisfied that the high test had been met in deciding whether this case rises to the level of an abuse of process. It find that it would be oppressive and vexatious to allow the prosecution of Ms. Clarke on the charge of marihuana possession to continue, given the state of this law in the Provinces of Ontario and Prince Edward Island. To do otherwise would undermine the fundamental justice of the system. It further found that this case is one of those “clearest of cases” where a stay of proceedings should be entered by this Court in order to avoid an abuse of its own process.

Chapter V: Author’s Autobiography and art work

I was born in Montreal on October 4th 1969 and later adopted into an Irish English Protestant-Catholic home on the West Island. Although my education was completely francophone both of my parents spoke mostly English at home. During the French- English conflict in Montreal my parents fearing the worst they immigrated the family to the Eastern United States to the town of Randolph Vermont. At the age of eight I was placed in the multi-age class which combined grades three through six. In multiage the students were allowed to advance at their own individual speed within this environment I was able to blossom academically. This class assisted in identifying me quite early as a gifted child.
Before I was sent to a private school for gifted students in Maine I spent a year learning discipline at a military in Ontario. I was afforded a comprehensive education with my studies including; Law, Government, physics, Egyptology and Latin. In September 1994 I enrolled in the General Studies program at University College of the Fraser eventually transferring into the Criminal Justice department. Since September 2005 I have been studying Canadian Constitution law at UBC prestigious school of law in Vancouver. Professionally I have over a decade of experience working in the legal field as a Bailiff, legal Assistant, Advocate and an Independent paralegal. Over the years I have been directly involved in changing the marijuana laws through the Canadian Judicial system. Some of my most notable accolades were as the President of a Compassion Club and as a Health Canada Medical Marijuana Stakeholder. Many marijuana users have benefited greatly by using the same sort of common law charter arguments included yours truly (R. v. Carlisle BCSC2003) as their defense to cannabis charges. Even before the Parker decision common law charter defenses were setting the stage for the changes to come. Precedent cases like my late great friends Wesley Winchester case (R v. Winchester BCSC 2002). It is my humblest hopes that this book will also help many others to fight marijuana charges until this prohibition of cannabis is also a thing of the past.

Chapter VI: Appendix

a. R. v. Parker (ON)
b. Wakeford v. Canada (ON)
c. Hitzig v. Canada (ON)
d. R. v. J.P. (ON)
e. R. V. Masse (BC)
f. R. V. Stavert (PEI)
g. R. V. Clark (NS)


The Criminal Code of Canada Section 581(1)
The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Section 4(1), 5(2) and 7(1)
The Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR)
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982. Section 52 (1), 15, 14 (1) and 7