Marijuana production

The accused pled guilty to producing marijuana and possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking after police found a 239-plant grow operation in his basement.

He brought a Charter application challenging the constitutionality of the one-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 7(2)(b)(iii) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court found that while the minimum sentence was not grossly disproportionate for the accused himself, it would be grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable hypothetical scenarios, such as a licensed producer making an honest mistake of law or a family member providing minor assistance.

The court declared the mandatory minimum provision unconstitutional under s. 12 of the Charter and found it could not be saved by s. 1.

The offender was found guilty of production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered 818 marijuana plants in a residential grow operation.

The offender, who acted as a caretaker or gardener, challenged the constitutionality of the two-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 7(2)(b)(v) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court found that while the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate for this specific offender, it violated s. 12 of the Charter based on reasonably foreseeable hypothetical scenarios involving licensing infractions.

The mandatory minimum was struck down, and the offender was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

The applicant pleaded guilty to producing marijuana and cannabis resin.

The Crown initially sought a mandatory minimum sentence but later withdrew its notice, rendering the applicant's constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum provision moot.

The applicant argued the court should still hear the challenge based on the Borowski principles.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot challenge, noting that a similar constitutional issue was already under appellate review, the provision did not create an inflationary floor for sentencing, and hearing the application would unduly consume judicial resources.

The offender pleaded guilty to producing marijuana after police found 29 plants in his home, which he shared with his 13-year-old daughter.

He grew the marijuana for personal use to manage chronic pain and sold surplus to friends.

The Crown initially sought a mandatory minimum sentence of six months but withdrew its notice, rendering a constitutional challenge moot.

The court considered the offender's lack of a criminal record, guilty plea, remorse, and positive rehabilitation efforts.

The court imposed a suspended sentence and 18 months of probation.

Following an earlier ruling declaring two mandatory minimum sentencing provisions in s. 7(2)(b) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act unconstitutional under s. 12 of the Charter, the court considered whether those provisions were severable from the remainder of the section.

The applicant argued the entire subsection constituted a unitary sentencing scheme that must fall together.

The Crown argued the offending subsections could be removed without affecting the validity of the remaining provisions imposing mandatory minimums for larger-scale cannabis production.

Applying the severance principles from Schachter v. Canada and related authorities, the court concluded the unconstitutional provisions were not inextricably bound to the remaining subsections.

The court held that only ss. 7(2)(b)(i) and (ii) were of no force or effect and that ss. 7(2)(b)(iii–vi) remained valid.