Dr. Jack Uetrecht

The accused, Brady Robertson, brought a constitutional challenge against sections 320.14(1)(c) and 320.14(3) of the Criminal Code and section 2 of SOR/2018-148, which establish a per se limit of 5 ng/ml of THC in blood for drivers.

The challenge argued that the per se limit violated section 7 of the Charter by being arbitrary and overbroad, particularly for frequent and chronic cannabis users who might have residual THC levels above the limit without being impaired.

The Crown argued the legislation was a precautionary measure to deter impaired driving.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the legislation's objective was to strengthen impaired driving laws and deter cannabis users from driving when they pose a risk.

The court concluded that the 5 ng/ml per se limit was neither arbitrary nor overbroad, as it was rationally connected to the legislative objectives and did not criminalize harmless conduct in a manner inconsistent with fundamental justice principles.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against a plastic surgeon and his clinic for breach of privacy.

The claims involved two main grievances: the surreptitious video surveillance of patients in the clinic (the Surveillance Complaint) and the posting of patient images on social media without valid consent (the Social Media Complaint).

The court certified the Surveillance Complaint, finding it met all criteria under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

However, the court declined to certify the Social Media Complaint, concluding that the issue of valid consent was highly idiosyncratic and required individual inquiries, meaning it failed the common issues and preferable procedure criteria.