John W. Conroy

The Court dismissed the Crown's appeal and held that restricting lawful medical marihuana possession to dried form unjustifiably violates section 7 of the Charter.

The prohibition was arbitrary because it undermined health and safety by forcing some patients toward riskier or less effective treatment methods.

The remedy declared sections 4 and 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be of no force and effect only to the extent they prohibit authorized persons from possessing cannabis derivatives for medical purposes, without suspension.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a decision granting a constitutional exemption to Insite, a safe injection facility in Vancouver, from federal drug possession and trafficking laws.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is valid federal criminal legislation that applies to provincial health facilities, the federal Minister of Health's refusal to grant an exemption under section 56 of the Act violated the claimants' section 7 Charter rights.

The Court found the Minister's decision was arbitrary and grossly disproportionate in its effects, as it denied life-saving medical care to vulnerable individuals without a corresponding benefit to public safety.

The Court ordered the Minister to grant the exemption forthwith.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the Narcotic Control Act provisions prohibiting the possession of marihuana for personal use and for the purpose of trafficking.

They argued that the prohibition, and the potential for imprisonment, violated section 7 of the Charter because marihuana use causes little or no harm to others (the 'harm principle').

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the prohibition is a valid exercise of Parliament's criminal law power.

The Court rejected the argument that the 'harm principle' is a principle of fundamental justice under section 7.

The Court found that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting vulnerable groups and society from the harms associated with marihuana use, and that the availability of imprisonment is not grossly disproportionate.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, an inmate serving a life sentence, was charged with a serious disciplinary offence and faced potential solitary confinement.

He applied for legal aid for his disciplinary hearing, but the Legal Services Society refused, claiming such hearings were not covered under the Legal Services Society Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant was entitled to legal services under the Act because the proceedings could lead to confinement.

However, the Court ruled that the Society retains the discretion to determine the appropriate level of legal services required, which may not necessarily include full legal representation at the hearing.

The respondent's statutory release was revoked by the National Parole Board based partly on evidence gathered during a search that may have violated his Charter rights.

The respondent argued the Board should have excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the National Parole Board is not a 'court of competent jurisdiction' under s. 24 of the Charter because it lacks jurisdiction over the remedy of excluding evidence.

The Board's structure, function, and statutory mandate require it to consider all relevant information to assess the risk to society, though it remains bound by a duty of fairness to ensure information is reliable.