The respondent was charged with producing marihuana and successfully argued at trial that the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) violated s. 7 of the Charter because physicians were boycotting the scheme, rendering the medical exemption illusory.
The trial judge struck down the MMAR and stayed the charges.
The Crown appealed.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in his factual findings and misapprehended the evidentiary record.
The Court held that the respondent failed to provide medical evidence that he or the patient witnesses qualified for an exemption, and there was no evidence of a systemic boycott by physicians.
The trial judge's orders were quashed and a new trial was ordered.
