Laws Against Marijuana Have Fallen in Canada

"I am going to the B.C. Supreme Court to argue that according to the court decisions on file, the laws against marijuana here in Canada have fallen. I am doing this so that the authorities will be held responsible for violating the law and causing harm to many Canadians."

Legal Details: Where I stand right now in the B.C. Courts is that I am Appealing a decision by Justice Rice of the Supreme Court. Justice Rice ruled that I did not have enough evidence to continue.

I am arguing in the Appeals Court that I have a doctor who supports my use of medical marijuana, that is all that is needed to qualify for the Charter 7 Right to use medical marijuana.

I am also saying that if I go outside today and use my medicine, I will be arrested. If I am arrested, then I can come back into court and have enough evidence to ask my questions. But if the court requires me to get arrested, it is called estoppel and is illegal for a court to do advise.

Therefore, I am confident I will return to the Supreme Court of B.C. to ask the following questions:

There exists lawful reason to advance that such a suspension has the effect of imposing a ‘notwithstanding clause’ that was not enacted by Parliament or a Provincial Legislature?”

"Whether a Court can read in or read down an enactment or regulation that by law has ceased to exist and is at that time without force and effect?”

"Whether the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations 2001, [MMAR] were valid purposeful regulations having force of law where the underlying law, CDSA s. 4 (1) 5 (1) and 7 (1), as they relate to the Schedule 11 substance ‘marihuana’ which was sought to be regulated, was without force and effect at the time of the promulgation?

The prohibition against possession of marihuana having been declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect”. R v Hydro Quebec [1997] 3 S.C.R. at paragraph 49.

"What is the effect of the expiry of a temporary Constitutional validity granted by a Court?”

"May a Court of Appeal directly or indirectly in respect of a regulation that by law is of no force and effect and thus invalid read in or read down that regulation so as to constitutionally validate the regulation previously declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect?”

"Whether Courts can exercise a common law power that conflicts with Constitution Act 1982, s. 52 and Charter section 7?” (Suspension of declarations of unconstitutionality where the effect thereof is to suspend Charter section 7 and 24 (1) rights or impose a notwithstanding effect)

I have already won a preliminary decision in the Court of Appeals on the merits of my estoppel argument as well as the merits of my motion as well. So, I am very hopeful of getting these questions in front of the court by the end of the year.

Thank you Michele Kubby for bringing us up to date on this important case! Ed.