The purpose of this website is to provide you with an opportunity to find out more about us, the services we offer and the fees we charge.

It also provides you with up-to-date information on some of our high profile law reform test cases, such as the medical marijuana cases, and our participation in submissions to Parliamentary and other committees on legislation and law reform issues, including penal abolition, drug law reform, and prison reform.

Cannabis/Marijuana

• Cannabis Act 2018 Bill C-45 - 3rd reading passed in Parliament and now in the Senate
• The Act and Parliamentary proceedings
• The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health proceedings

The Cannabis Act 2018 - A reviews and analysis by John W. Conroy QC.

• The proposed Canadian Federal Cannabis Act – Offences, Sentencing and Punishments by John W. Conroy QC, April 17, 2017
• The Proposed Cannabis Act R.S.C.2018 A Commentary by John W. Conroy QC

1. Constitutionality of prohibition

See the R. v. Caine Archive, including the Supreme Court of Canada Decisions (23/12/03) in:

• R. v. Caine, R. v. Malmo-Levine
• R. v. Clay

• 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)

• R v Neary, 2017 SKCA 29
• Response to Application for Leave, File Number: 37608
• Application for Leave to Appeal
• Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal
• R v Neary, 2016 SKQB 218 - FINAL

Additional detailed information and cases are contained in the Library under the heading Drug Laws.

Legislation

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The Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR) since repealed, but essentially forming Part 2 of the ACMPR above;

The Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) since repealed, but essentially forming Part 1 of the ACMPR above.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 [2000] O.J. No. 2787 (Ont. C.A.);

Allard v. Canada

1. 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;
2. FCA Appeal and Cross appeal - Government appeal dismissed, and Patients appeal allowed and sent back to Manson J for clarification;
3. Manson J. further Order - initial order clarified and reaffirmed;
4. Phelan J. Motion to Vary injunction July 15,2015 - dismissed as premature;
5. 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.”
6. Phelan J. Final Order;

R v Smith -

Restriction to dried marijuana in MMAR unconstitutional - patients can produce and possess in any of its forms;

• R. v. Smith, [2015] 2 SCR 602, 2015 SCC 34 (CanLII),
• R. v. Smith, 2014 BCCA 322 (CanLII)
• R. v. Smith 2012 BCSC 544 (CanLII) - Reasons for Judgement of Johnson J.

Attorney General of Canada v. Sfetkopoulos et al, Reasons for Judgment of the Court, Federal Court of Appeal (27/10/08)

R. v. Hornby Decisions:

• Oral Reasons for Judgment, Court of Appeal, November 14, 2003
• Reasons for Judgment, Provincial Court, March 4, 2003

R. v. Smith and Budda, Provincial Court Reasons (07/09/04)

For further judicial history and cases please go to the Library under Drug laws or Medical Marijuana

Other Drugs - Harm Reduction - The Vancouver Supervised Injection Site

PHS Community Services Society v. Attorney General of Canada; Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) v. Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Health for Canada:

• PHS Community Services Society, et al. v. Canada., 2011 SCC 44. The Supreme Court of Canada ordered the government of Canada to keep the site open.
• PHS Community Services Society v. Attorney General of Canada, 2008 BCCA 441 (CanLII).
• Reasons for Judgment of the The Honourable Mr. Justice Pitfield, May 27, 2008.
• VANDU Archive contains copies of trial level pleadings etc

Criminal Records and other Prejudicial Consequences

• Prejudicial Consequences of a "Non-Conviction" in Canada

• Guardian: How technology disrupted the truth

Prison Law Issues

See generally Canadian Prison Law by John .W. Conroy QC

• Van Vlymen v. Solicitor General of Canada, Federal Court Reasons (03/08/04)