The Crown brought a motion to quash the accused’s constitutional application challenging the validity of ss. 4(1) and 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the former Medical Marihuana Access Regulations.
The accused sought declarations that the provisions were unconstitutional and a stay of proceedings related to charges of possession and production of marijuana plants.
The court found the proposed evidentiary record consisted largely of anecdotal evidence and replicated materials previously rejected in earlier litigation.
It further held the accused lacked standing to challenge the replaced regulatory scheme and failed to demonstrate a constitutional infirmity linked to the charges.
The court concluded the application had no merit and no likelihood of success.
