Question

r. v. parker (2000), ont. c.a. 359
parker suffered for 40 years from a severe form of epilepsy. he experienced frequent seizures that were sometimes considered life - threatening. parker tried to control his seizures through surgery and conventional medication. the surgery was a failure and the medication only moderately successful. he found that smoking marijuana substantially reduced the number of seizures. since he had no legal source of marijuana, he began growing it him - self. on two occasions, the police searched his home and seized the marijuana, charging him with possession.
parker decided to fight the charges by showing that the prohibition against possession of marijuana was unconstitutional. he claimed that the legislation infringed his right to fundamental justice as guaranteed by s. 7 of the charter. because parliament made the cultivation and possession of marijuana illegal, parker faced the threat of imprisonment as the penalty for trying to preserve his health. he argued that a statute having this effect is not consistent with the principle of fundamental justice. at trial, parker cited evidence of the therapeutic value of marijuana for treating epilepsy, glaucoma, the side effects of cancer treatment, and the symptoms of aids.
the trial judge ruled in favour of parker and found that the prohibition against marijuana infringed his rights under s. 7 of the charter. the judge stayed (suspended) the proceedings against parker and read into the legisla - tion an exemption for persons possessing or cultivating marijuana for their \personal, medically approved use.\
the crown appealed this decision. the ontario court of appeal dis - missed the appeal. however, the court of appeal disagreed with the trial judges remedy of reading an exemption into the law. instead, the appeals court declared the law to be \of no force.\ it suspended its declaration for one year to give parliament the chance to amend the law to bring it into agreement with s. 7 of the charter. on july 30, 2001, canada became the first country in the world to legalize doctor - prescribed marijuana for people suffering from terminal illnesses or severe, chronic pain.
power to search any place (except a residence) where they suspect drugs are concealed without obtaining a warrant beforehand. you will learn about search warrants and how they are obtained in chapter 8, investigation and arrest.
arbitrary detention or imprisonment
section 9 of the charter guarantees that \everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.\ this means that people cannot be held for questioning, arrested, or kept in jail by the police without good reason. does this also mean that police roadside checks for drivers sobriety are illegal? this question was answered in r. v. ladouceur, 1990.
fast fact
in 1996, the narcotic control act, r.s.c. 1985, was amended as the controlled drugs and substances act.
case

1. what did parker mean when he argued that the law prohibiting the possession of marijuana violated the principle of fundamental justice? identify the specific charter right that is most relevant to this situation.
2. explain why the court of appeal suspended its declaration against the marijuana law for one year.
3. how do you think the law to legalize doctor - prescribed marijuana will effect the attitudes of the public and the police toward this drug?

Explanation:

1. Parker argued that the law violated fundamental justice as it restricted his access to a substance (marijuana) that helped his severe epilepsy, interfering with his right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter.
2. The Court of Appeal suspended its declaration for one year to give Parliament time to amend the law to align with s. 7 of the Charter, to avoid an immediate voiding of the law and allow for a more orderly legislative response.
3. Legalizing doctor - prescribed marijuana may change public attitudes from seeing it as an illegal drug to a medical treatment option. Police may shift from enforcement against users with prescriptions to focusing on illegal trafficking.

Answer:

1. He claimed it violated his right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter as it restricted his access to a substance that helped his medical condition.
2. To give Parliament time to amend the law to be in agreement with s. 7 of the Charter.
3. Public attitudes may become more accepting seeing it as a medical treatment. Police may focus more on illegal trafficking and less on users with prescriptions.