Court File and Parties
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Rosenberg, MacPherson and Epstein JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
and
Reverend Brother Michel D. Ethier
Appellant
Counsel:
Reverend Brother Michel D. Ethier, in person
Kevin Wilson and Vanita Goela, for the respondent
Heard and endorsed: September 9, 2011
On appeal from the decision of Justice David Nadeau of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 8, 2010 and from the decision of Justice Alfred Stong, of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 16, 2010.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1]
Background
The appellant, Reverend Brother Michael Ethier, was charged with possession of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and production of marijuana in the Municipality at West Nipissing. He brought an application seeking an order prohibiting prosecution of these charges against him as being offences unknown to law. On April 8, 2010, Justice Nadeau of the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application and ordered the trial to proceed.
2The appellant was also charged with possession of marijuana in the Town of Bracebridge. He brought an application seeking an order prohibiting prosecution of these charges against him as being offences unknown to law. On June 16, 2010, Justice Stong of the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application.
3The appellant appeals both decisions. His essential argument is that several decisions by different courts across Canada have invalidated the various provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act under which he has been charged.
[4]
Analysis
We disagree. This court has expressly said that the provisions of the CDSA are “in full force and effect” in several cases: R. v. Hitzig (2003), 2003 CanLII 30796 (ON CA), 177 C.C.C. (3d) 449; R. v. Turmel (2003), 2003 CanLII 17130 (ON CA), 177 C.C.C. (3d) 533; and R. v. Turmel (2007), 2007 ONCA 133, 72 W.C.B. (2d) 501.
[5]
Disposition
The appeals are dismissed.
