The applicants, convicted of producing over 500 marihuana plants, brought a constitutional challenge against the two-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 7(2)(b)(v) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
They argued the provision violated s. 12 of the Charter.
The court found that while the sentence was not grossly disproportionate for the applicants themselves, it was grossly disproportionate for reasonably foreseeable hypothetical offenders, such as those involved in regulatory licensing infractions.
The court concluded the provision violated s. 12, was not saved by s. 1, and declared it of no force or effect.
