Cases
SCC Case Information
Summary
33071
Her Majesty the Queen v. Mathew David Beren
(British Columbia) (Criminal) (By Leave)
Keywords
Canadian charter - criminal.
Summary
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes only.
Charter of Rights - Fundamental justice - Criminal law - Constitutional challenge to ss. 41(b.1) and 54.1 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, SOR 2001-227 (MMAR) - Whether policy and MMAR provide adequate access to and licit supply of marihuana to satisfy s. 7 of the Charter and respond to Hitzig v. Canada (2003), 231 D.L.R. (4th) 104 (Ont. C.A.) - Did the Court below overstep the limits of s. 7 of the Charter for judicial intervention by making policy choices different from those made by the government in relation to a regulated program? - Does s. 7 require that the government regulate according to the subjectively-held beliefs and perceptions of those regulated as to the efficacy of particular drugs in the treatment of various medical conditions? - Does s. 7 protect economic rights of suppliers to provide certain products within a regulated program? - Did the trial judge err in failing to consider the actual effects of the regulatory scheme (the denial of the medical marihuana defence to virtually all persons that qualify for it) and focussing solely on whether the access restrictions were arbitrary? - Did the trial judge err in focussing solely on the limited potential of contraindications to determine that the access restrictions were not arbitrary when the evidence demonstrated that the effect of those restrictions are inconsistent with and contrary to the objectives of the scheme?- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.
The Respondent was charged with production, possession and controlling marijuana for the purposes of trafficking, contrary to ss. 5 and 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. He defended himself by challenging the constitutionality of those provisions as well as the constitutionality of ss. 41(b.1) and 54.1 of the MMAR. He argues that, despite the legislative amendments and policy changes since Hitzig v. Canada (2003), 231 D.L.R. (4th) 104 (Ont. C.A.), the MMAR fails to provide practical access to medical marihuana for those with medical conditions falling within the provided exemption. He brought evidence to indicate that most of Canada’s medical cannabis users are not protected by the MMAR and do not access their cannabis from a legal supply source. The Crown’s position was that as there is an adequate, licit supply available to qualified individuals, those who do not get their marihuana from a legal source are doing so by choice, and that choice should not be constitutionally protected.
