2 total
Provincial ban on home cannabis cultivation upheld as valid exercise of provincial jurisdiction.
The appellant challenged provisions of Quebec's Cannabis Regulation Act that completely prohibit the possession and cultivation of cannabis plants in a dwelling-house, arguing they fell under federal criminal law power or were inoperative due to federal paramountcy.
The Supreme Court held that the impugned provisions are a valid exercise of provincial jurisdiction under ss. 92(13) and (16) of the Constitution Act, 1867, finding their pith and substance is to ensure the effectiveness of the state monopoly on cannabis sales to protect public health and security.
The Court further held that the provisions do not frustrate the purpose of the federal Cannabis Act, because Parliament's exemption of up to four home-grown plants does not confer positive rights to cultivate, and the provincial objectives are compatible with the federal scheme's goals of combating illicit cannabis activity.
Breath-test presumptions partly infringed innocence rights but mostly survived section 1 review.
The Court considered constitutional challenges to Criminal Code evidentiary presumptions governing breath test prosecutions for blood alcohol levels over the legal limit.
A majority held that sections 258(1)(c), (d.01), and (d.1) did not infringe section 7 or section 11(c) but did infringe section 11(d), with section 258(1)(d.01), section 258(1)(d.1), and a severed version of section 258(1)(c) justified under section 1.
The Court allowed the appeal in part and upheld the respondent's conviction.