Anik Jodouin

The applicant, Michel Lalancette, was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

Prior to sentencing, he brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of the simple possession and trafficking provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

He sought to challenge the provisions as they apply to all scheduled substances.

The court held that the applicant lacked private interest standing to challenge the simple possession provision, as its invalidation would not mitigate his sentence for trafficking.

The court also declined to grant public interest standing, finding that other reasonable and effective means exist to challenge the provisions.

The constitutional challenge was therefore limited to the trafficking provision as it relates to heroin.

The applicant, charged with possession of oxycodone and hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded legal counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

The court found that the applicant failed to provide full and complete disclosure of her financial circumstances, noting substantial unexplained deposits and gambling expenses in her bank records.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that her right to a fair trial would be compromised without counsel, as the trial judge has a duty to assist a self-represented accused.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after being caught with over 7 kilograms of the substance.

The accused admitted the elements of the offence but raised the defence of necessity, arguing he intended to distribute the heroin safely and at cost to addicts to prevent fentanyl overdoses and combat the opioid crisis.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the defence of necessity had no air of reality.

The court held that the perceived danger to addicts was not imminent within the meaning of the jurisprudence, and the accused had reasonable legal alternatives to effect change, such as constitutional challenges or political advocacy.

The accused was found guilty.