Medical marijuana

Lin Yang appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the sole defence witness, Ze Yi Xu, who offered exculpatory evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made two material errors in assessing Mr. Xu's credibility: a misapprehension of evidence regarding vehicle availability and an illogical reasoning error concerning Mr. Xu's delay in informing the police.

These errors were deemed essential to the trial judge's rejection of the witness's testimony.

The appeal was allowed, and a retrial was ordered.

The defendant pleaded guilty to production of cannabis marijuana contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offence involved the cultivation of medical marijuana on a property without valid licenses under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation rather than the Crown's requested four-year jail sentence.

The court also dismissed the Crown's application for forfeiture of the real property, finding that such forfeiture would be disproportionate under section 19.1(3) of the CDSA.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana under 3 kg for the purpose of trafficking.

He operated an illegal marijuana dispensary in Toronto that he claimed was intended to serve only medical users.

The Crown sought a $25,000 fine and two-year probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with one year of probation and 100 hours of community service, finding that while the operation posed risks of community harm, no actual harm occurred, the accused's motivation was primarily to help medical users, and he had ceased operations and demonstrated rehabilitation.

The accused was arrested for possession of marijuana after police observed him in a confrontation and smelled fresh marijuana emanating from him and his vehicle.

The accused produced a medical marijuana card, which the arresting officer believed to be fake.

Subsequent searches incident to arrest revealed a loaded handgun in the vehicle and cocaine concealed between the accused's buttocks during a strip search at the station.

The accused brought a pre-trial application alleging violations of his s. 8 Charter rights and seeking exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The court dismissed the application, finding the arrest and searches lawful, and alternatively holding that the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2) regardless.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking.

The appeal raised three main issues: the validity of the search warrants, the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis regarding the exclusion of evidence, and the finding that possession was for trafficking purposes.

The trial judge had found a reasonable apprehension of bias by the issuing justice due to an indirect familial connection, but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the search warrant was validly issued on the merits, the s. 24(2) analysis was appropriate, and the quantity and nature of materials seized supported the trafficking inference.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and possession of cannabis contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after police observed him operating a motor vehicle at high speed and determined his ability was impaired by marijuana consumption.

The accused had a valid medical prescription for the marijuana.

The accused entered a guilty plea, but the court struck the plea after determining that the facts did not disclose an offence of unlawful possession.

The court held that lawful possession of a prescribed substance does not become unlawful merely because the accused subsequently used it while operating a motor vehicle, distinguishing the case from Elias v. The Queen on the basis that the accused was always lawfully entitled to possess the prescribed marijuana.

The accused, charged with offences related to OHIP billing fraud and medical marijuana, brought a motion to adjourn their trial scheduled for September 11, 2017.

The motion was based on the Crown's late notice, provided on August 8, 2017, of its intention to call a new expert witness without providing a report or a specific description of the proposed expertise.

The court found that the Crown failed to comply with the expert witness notice requirements under s. 657.3 of the Criminal Code.

To protect the accused's right to make full answer and defence, the court granted the adjournment.

The defendant pleaded guilty to production of a Schedule II substance contrary to section 7(2)(b) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the CDSA.

Following a trial of an issue (Gardiner hearing), the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant produced and possessed marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The defendant was an authorized medical marijuana producer who significantly exceeded his authorized production limits.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence that he was engaged in a two-stage operation for personal consumption, finding instead that the scale of the operation, the packaging of marijuana in one-pound quantities with brand names, and the defendant's lack of credibility supported an inference of trafficking.

The court sentenced the defendant to five months concurrent imprisonment on both counts, imposed a 109 order for ten years, ordered a DNA sample, and placed the defendant on probation for two years with conditions prohibiting marijuana production.

The accused pleaded guilty to production of hash oil contrary to section 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and arson by negligence contrary to section 436(1) of the Criminal Code.

An explosion occurred in the accused's shed while he was extracting hash oil from marijuana shake for personal medical use to manage chronic pain.

The accused sustained severe burn injuries covering approximately 60% of his body with third-degree burns, requiring hospitalization and multiple surgeries.

The Crown sought a 90-day custodial sentence, but the defence argued for a suspended sentence with probation given the exceptional circumstances.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years of probation, finding that the accused's significant personal suffering, first-offender status, legitimate medical need, and the principle of proportionality rendered incarceration inappropriate.

The accused was charged with driving while impaired by drug (cannabis) following a traffic stop for a defective tail light and mismatched license plate.

The Crown's case relied on observations by the arresting officer and a Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) examination.

The court found that while the officers had reasonable grounds for their investigative steps, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired.

The charge was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring the injured plaintiff to attend a further defence medical examination with an addiction psychiatrist in a motor vehicle personal injury action.

The motions judge had granted the defendant’s request for the additional examination on the basis that the plaintiff’s marijuana use and addiction issues were central to the litigation and that expert evidence from a specialist would assist the court.

On the leave motion, the court considered Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and whether a conflicting decision justified granting leave.

The court found that the broad discretionary approach taken by the motions judge conflicted with the narrower approach articulated in prior authority governing further defence medical examinations.

Leave to appeal to the Divisional Court was therefore granted.

The accused applied to vary his bail recognizance to permit him to resume producing medical marijuana at an industrial premises while facing charges for drug production and related offences.

He argued that his prior personal-use production licence remained valid due to the Federal Court’s interlocutory injunction in Allard v Canada preserving certain licences under the former Marihuana Medical Access Regulations.

The court held that the applicant did not meet the criteria for protection under the Allard injunction or Health Canada’s transitional administrative policy because his authorization to possess had expired before the relevant injunction date.

As a result, he could obtain medical marijuana through lawful sources but could not personally cultivate it.

The application to vary the recognizance was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to production of marijuana contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

A Gardiner hearing was held to resolve factual disputes regarding the extent of the grow operation.

The offender acknowledged growing 250 marijuana plants in his residence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence followed by 3 years' probation, with ancillary orders including a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA profiling order.

The sentencing considered the offender's chronic health conditions, medical authorization for cannabis use, lack of commercial motive, prior 1998 conviction for the same offence, and 14-year crime-free period since that conviction.

The Crown brought an application for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's order dismissing forgery charges against the respondents, who operated a medical clinic and allegedly signed medical marijuana access forms without proper authorization or specialist concurrence.

The Crown argued the judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the definition of a 'false document' under s. 321(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court agreed, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge failed to assess the whole of the evidence against the correct elements of the offence, resulting in a loss of jurisdiction.

The dismissal of the forgery counts was quashed and the matter remitted to the preliminary inquiry judge.

The defendant was charged with production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking following a break-in at a licensed medical marijuana grow operation.

The defendant, employed as a security monitor and cleaner, called 911 to report the break-in and cooperated fully with police.

He claimed he honestly believed the entire operation was authorized under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) based on production licenses displayed at the facility and assurances from his employer.

The Crown argued either that the defendant knew the operation exceeded authorized limits or, alternatively, that any mistaken belief was one of law rather than fact.

The court found the defendant's belief in his immunity from criminal liability was honestly held but constituted a mistake of law, as the licenses authorized only 30 plants while over 1,500 were present.

The defendant was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with possession of more than 30 grams of marijuana, possession of under 3 kilograms of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking, and trafficking.

Following a RIDE checkpoint stop where the officer detected a strong odour of marijuana, the accused's vehicle was searched and five one-pound bags of marijuana were found in the trunk.

The court found the accused guilty of possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking, but dismissed the trafficking charge due to lack of evidence of actual trafficking.

The court rejected Charter arguments regarding the lawfulness of the arrest and search, finding the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the odour of marijuana combined with other observations.

The court also found no breach of the right to counsel despite a brief delay in providing the caution.

The defendant was charged with production of marijuana and related offences.

He applied under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to quash search warrants that led to the discovery of marijuana plants.

The defendant held a production license allowing him to produce marijuana for personal medical purposes.

Four search warrants were issued for different units in a warehouse plaza—two licensed units (17 and 18) and two unlicensed units (15 and 16).

The licensed units were authorized for a combined total of 294 plants.

The defendant challenged whether the warrants had sufficient reasonable grounds to believe there was an "overgrow" in the licensed units and whether the unlicensed units were operating as a grow operation.

The court found that after excision and amplification of the Information to Obtain, the warrants were supported by reasonable grounds and dismissed the application.

The plaintiff, who uses medical marijuana, was threatened with arrest for trespass by police officers while smoking marijuana outside a courthouse.

He brought an action against the city, police board, and individual officers for intimidation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and breaches of ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court granted the motion, finding the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for any of the claims.

The Charter claims against the individual defendants were dismissed on the merits, while the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the remaining claims.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 21 motion seeking determination of a question of law regarding the interpretation of a homeowner’s insurance policy after thefts of medical marijuana plants grown by the insured.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on liability and argued the plants were covered as personal property under the policy’s general contents coverage.

The court held that the specific policy provision addressing “trees, shrubs and plants” governed and limited recovery to $1,000 per plant.

The court rejected the argument that the plants fell under the broader contents provision and also found that the grow‑operation exclusion did not apply to the theft of the plants themselves.

As the insurer had already paid the maximum amount permitted under the policy, the plaintiffs’ additional claims were dismissed.