R. Marzel

At a preliminary hearing, the court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to commit four accused persons to trial on various charges related to marijuana production and trafficking conspiracies.

The court discharged two accused (Tuan Vu and Thu Tran) on conspiracy charges, finding that while they may have facilitated or furthered the commission of crimes, the evidence was insufficient to establish they were parties to the formation of the conspiracy agreement itself.

The court applied the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. J.F., which restricts party liability in conspiracy cases to conduct that aids or abets the formation of the agreement.

The court also discharged one accused (Cong Nguyen) on a count involving a warehouse conspiracy, finding that merely selling equipment with knowledge it would be used for illegal purposes does not constitute conspiracy.

Two accused were committed to trial on trafficking and conspiracy counts.

The Crown charged the defendants with offences under the Food and Drug Act for selling BZP (1-Benzyl-Piperazine) capsules without obtaining required drug identification numbers and establishment licenses.

The defendants moved for a directed verdict, arguing that BZP products marketed for recreational purposes do not fall within the definition of "drug" under the Food and Drug Act.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the Act applies to substances that modify organic functions regardless of whether medicinal claims are made, and that the legislation's purpose is to protect Canadians from potentially harmful substances.

The motion was dismissed.