The details of the new medical marijuana regulations are out – and soon, so should the supplies from home growers. Authorities say that the stricter rules are put in place to protect public safety, but the growing public confusion and differing opinions seem to be working against the Canadian government’s plans.
Rolled out on June 10th and officially published on June 12th in the Canada Gazette, the new regulations no longer allow medical marijuana users to grow their own plants at home. The federal government will also cease the production and distribution of the substance, leaving only licensed growers as the only source for medical marijuana users. Jeffrey Reisman, a well-known criminal lawyer in Toronto explains that one of the main factors that prompted the change in laws was that home growing was creating a lot of neighborhood crime. “In some cases we have organized crime operating grow ups, or targeting legal grow ups to steal product, which compromises the safety in a community”, says Reisman.
Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq said in a statement that the stricter regulations will be imposed to “protect public safety” and “strengthen the safety of Canadian communities.” Health Canada backed Aglukkaq’s argument, claiming that letting individuals grow their own marijuana since the Marijuana Medical Access Program began about 12 years ago has affected public health, safety and security. Within this period, authorized medical marijuana users ballooned to 30,000 from the original 500, according to the department.
Apart from producing more marijuana than they can use, some growers have allegedly abused the program by selling illegally or causing fire and flood hazards due to unregulated operations. More serious threats include theft and other criminal acts that have been spurred by uncontrolled production and distribution of the product.
Meanwhile, the issue has also reignited a wider clamor to loosen Canada’s marijuana laws in general, with nearly 70 percent of polled individuals supporting marijuana legalization – or at least decriminalization of possession of small amounts. According to Forum Research, which gathered the opinion of more than 1,000 Canadians age 18 and older, only 15 percent think that marijuana regulations should remain unchanged, while 13 percent are in favor of even stricter penalties.
Another sector that has been vocal even before the medical marijuana program was launched is the medical community, which has reiterated time and again that there is not enough evidence of marijuana’s medical benefits.
Some politicians were also not spared in the crossfire. Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau, in particular, earned mixed reactions when he professed not only his position in favor of legalizing marijuana – but also the fact that he had smoked marijuana at a dinner party. Roughly five years ago, Trudeau strongly opposed even just marijuana decriminalization.
Such “transformations” and developments are prompting even more people – politicians and average citizens alike – to speak out about the issue. While many eagerly await which side will prevail in the end, some observers are content enough seeing that marijuana laws are getting deeper, much more serious attention than ever.
Jeffrey Reisman is a well-respected Toronto Criminal lawyer, who focuses on all areas of criminal defence including assault cases, fraud, arson, burglary, murder and more. He is also an experienced bail hearing lawyer in Toronto.
The Legal Aid crisis in B.C. is set to peak in early 2014, and criminal lawyers across the Province are preparing to halt services between the dates of February 17th, and March 30th of 2014. This means that Trials for offences ranging from impaired driving, shoplifting, assault, murder, you name it, that are currently scheduled for that time period, will be adjourned to later dates. What could cause such chaos and delay in our Court system? You guessed it – Provincial Government funding cuts. And it isn’t just a small percentage that lawyers would see taken off of their earnings during February and March – they wouldn’t be getting paid. At all.
The legal aid system in B.C. has taken blow after blow over the last 10 years, making it increasingly difficult for those with a low income to have access to sound legal advice. After the Legal Services Society recently announced that the criminal tariff faced a $2.5 million dollar deficit (driven by Stephen Harper’s new Safe Streets and Communities Act I might add, along with other Federal political initiatives), they declared that they had no choice but to deny lawyers payment for their services in the aforementioned time frame.
This is a serious issue. Our Court system is already severely backlogged, and this 6 week long hiatus is only going to going to cause catastrophic scheduling conflicts. Those scheduling conflicts could lead to the frailties in the administration of justice in our Province.
While the Legal Services Society is still set to meet with the Attorney General of B.C. to discuss these ever-growing problems, we are unlikely to see a resolution in the near future. Where there is no money in the budget, there can be no service provided.
Legal Aid is an essential component of our justice system; it protects the most vulnerable in our society. It is clear that British Columbia’s Provincial government doesn’t have societies best interests in mind, and shows no signs of having a change of heart.
In recent months, we’ve seen an alarming rise in the number of reported animal cruelty cases in British Columbia. The most high profile of these cases is, without a doubt, the shocking carnage inflicted on the 100 sled dogs at a dog compound in Pemberton, B.C. This took place in April of 2010, following the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. The dogs were property of the Whistler based company, Howling Dog Tours Inc (now owned by Great Adventures Whistler). After the influx of tourism and demand for their services dwindled following the Olympics, an employee of the company, Robert Fawcett, slaughtered 100 of the canines “execution style” – either shooting them at point blank range, or slitting their throats. After they were killed, their bodies were disposed of in a mass grave.
It was not just the massacre of the dogs that infuriated the public; it was the fact that Mr. Fawcett filed a claim with the Worker’s Compensation Board, claiming to be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress disorder. Communities all over British Columbia demanded that justice be served in memory of the 100 dogs whose lives were viciously cut short. The B.C. S.P.C.A responded by hiring a team of forensic experts, at a cost of $225,000.00, half of which would be funded by the B.C. Government.
In May of 2011, an excavation team recovered the bodies of 56 of the animals. It has been noted as one of the Canada’s largest animal cruelty investigations.
The question that remained was how would Mr. Fawcett be held accountable for his actions? In May of 2011, new legislation was brought into effect in British Columbia, pertaining to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The new legislation was introduced as a direct result of the Sled Dog Massacre. Monetary penalties under the act increased from $10,000 to $75,000. Periods of incarceration for those found guilty of such an offence were raised to 24 months, from 6 months. Furthermore, the legislation extended the statute of limitations for prosecution from 6 months, to 3 years. Unfortunately, under the previous legislation, which applied to Mr. Fawcett’s case, time had run out, and no charges could be pressed under the Act. Charges approved under the Criminal Code were filed against Mr. Fawcett, and, in August of 2012, he pled guilty to one count of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. His sentencing has been set for November 22nd, 2012 and he will undergo a psychological assessment prior to the sentencing hearing.
The new amendments to the <em “mso-bidi-font-style:=”” normal”=””>Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act were made in hopes of deterring people from inflicting abuse upon animals, including service animals such as horses, sleigh dogs, and guide dogs. The only problem is that unless directly caught in the Act, these cases will be difficult to prosecute. The victims of these offences are unable to speak for themselves, and as their masters are usually the cause of the abuse, many cases go unreported. It is often too little too late, as was the case in the Sled Dog Massacre.
Animal advocates, and those who are passionate about the comfort of our furry comrades, will continue to battle for the ethical treatment of animals abused at the hands of their protectors. Only time will tell if the new legislation is effective in the deterrence of animal cruelty.
British Columbia is a Province famous for its natural beauty, multiculturalism, and its expensive real estate. It has also recently become well known for its tough laws on those caught drinking and driving. In September 2010, the new Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) scheme was unveiled. We all remember the controversy surrounding the strict legislation – severe consequences were handed down to those caught driving with a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) of over .05. The citizens of B.C. were assured that these strict rules would, over time, greatly decrease the number of alcohol related deaths on our roads. What they weren’t told, was that this decrease in alcohol related fatalities, would cause an increase in unjust, unfair, and even fraudulent prohibitions for drivers caught in the crosshairs of the IRP regime. It wasn’t long after these laws were put into effect that British Columbians started to question the fairness of it all. The case of R. v. Sivia would eventually make its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, to be reviewed by The Honourable Mr. Justice Sigurdson. After months of review, Sigurdson agreed that parts of the IRP scheme were in fact unconstitutional. This led to an amendment of the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act. These amendments increased the onus on the police to follow proper procedure, and added an “adequate appeal process” for drivers who had been issued IRP’s. One of the most important amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act is Section 94.3, which relates to the duties of a Peace Officer when issuing an IRP:
94.3 A peace officer who serves a notice of driving prohibition on a
person under section 94.1 must promptly forward to the superintendent
(a) the person’s licence or permit to operate a motor vehicle, if the peace officer took the licence or permit into possession,
(b) a copy of the notice of driving prohibition,
(c) a certificate of service, in the form established by the superintendent, showing that the notice of driving prohibition was personally served on the person subject to the driving prohibition,
(d) a report, in the form established by the superintendent, sworn or solemnly affirmed by the peace officer, and
(e) a copy of any certificate of analysis under section 258 of the Criminal Code with respect to the person.
These amendments at first glance seem to provide relief to the issues previously noted in Sivia. However, continue scrolling through the Motor Vehicle Act, and you will find an absurd and blatant contradiction in regard to 94.3 (d). Section 94.5 of the Act reads as follows:
94.5 (1) In a review of a driving prohibition under section 94.4, the superintendent must consider
(a) any relevant sworn or solemnly affirmed statements and any other relevant information,
(b) the report of the peace officer forwarded under section 94.3 (d),
(c) a copy of any certificate of analysis under section 258 of the Criminal Code with respect to the person served with the notice of driving prohibition,
(c.1) any other relevant documents and information forwarded to the superintendent, including peace officers’ reports that have not been sworn or solemnly affirmed and the copy of the notice of prohibition.
Section 94.3 (d) and Section 94.5 (c.1) are clearly hypocritical of each other. The purpose of amending the Motor Vehicle Act was to provide a remedy to the unconstitutional parts of the IRP scheme. Legislators seem to have either made a careless mistake, or, more likely, they had crafted Section 94.5 (c.1) as a safety net for individuals appealing their IRP under the basis of a technicality, such as not having the officer properly swear or solemnly affirm their Report to Superintendent.
This is an issue that my office recently faced with a client who had received an IRP. In her case, the investigating officer who submitted the Report to Superintendent failed to have the Report properly sworn or affirmed. The Commissioner had mistakenly signed in the area designated to indicate whether the Officer was swearing or solemnly affirming, instead of signing the jurat provided for his or her signature. After reviewing the new sections of the Motor Vehicle Act, it seemed as though this client could have her prohibition overturned on the basis that the report was not in proper form, as per Section 94.3 (d). This was clearly argued in her written submissions done by our office. When the Adjudicator from OSMV (Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) rendered his decision on her Prohibition, he simply stated that there was “intent” to sign in the correct area; the Commissioner had simply been mistaken. The Adjudicator made no reference to the new legislation, even though it was provided right to him.
In my opinion, the Adjudicator’s ruling was unfair, unreasonable, and sent the message that if the police “intend” to do their jobs properly, they cannot be held responsible for making a procedural mistake. It makes me wonder what the point was of even amending the legislation. It almost seems like in this case, the legislation regarding duties of a peace officer was treated as a guideline to proper police work, rather than what it really is – a law.
The client has now made the decision to take her matter in front of a Supreme Court Judge for the purpose of a Judicial Review. The outcome of that hearing will be posted on our blog in the near future.
This week, British Columbia’s Attorney General, Shirley Bond, announced that the government would abandon the direction it gave to Crown prosecutors to make Applications to televise the legal proceedings of those accused of crimes relating to Vancouver’s Stanley Cup riot. The government appears to have had this change of heart after it’s first Application was dismissed against Mr. Ryan Dickenson – who is the first person being sentenced in in relation to the riot. The judge felt that the Crown did not provide enough information to support the Application – namely the cost associated with televising these legal proceedings.
I really could go on & on about how inappropriate I felt these “RiotTV” applications were in the first place. I am a firm believer that cameras have no purpose in our courtrooms. Of course, there is the reasonable argument of transparency and that having cameras would better educate people on how the justice system functions. But to those people I say walk down to your local courthouse, read case law, order transcripts of court proceedings, if you’re so inclined. The risks of having cameras in courtrooms, in my opinion, far outweigh the benefits. A criminal trial is a ‘truth-seeking’ exercise. Witnesses may be hesitant to give full accounts of their evidence if they know the world is watching them. Lawyers may tailor their questioning of witnesses for the same reasons. Judges may be reluctant to decide a case in a certain way if it is deemed to be unpopular with the public. Prosecutors worry about their personal safety. In fact, all participants in a criminal trial worry about their personal safety. No one wants their face frozen in time on YouTube – and in this day and age, that is what happens. I see what happens on TV in American courtrooms and I do not want Canada’s justice system to go there.
But why did Premier Christy Clark demand that these particular offenders be put on TV? She said something along the lines of “well they committed their crimes on camera, therefore they should have no problem being dealt with by the courts while on camera”.
The logic in that is ridiculous. I have had dozens of clients who’s criminal acts have been captured on CCTV cameras – for murder, break & enter, sexual assault, DUI’s and drug offences. Crimes, which I argue, are far worse than some of my clients who stand charged in relation to Vancouver’s riot.
So why didn’t the government seek to televise these other crimes caught on camera? Because there was nothing to be gained politically from doing so.
The fact of the matter is this: June 15, 2011 was an awful day in Vancouver’s history and the government tried to gain politically from what happened that day. In doing so, they tried to interfere with the justice system’s independence. This ultimately blew up in their face. The BC Liberals are quite out of touch with the ailing state of our justice system – and it is largely due to the financial cutbacks they imposed over the last decade. Legal Aid is seriously reduced for those who need legal representation. We need more judges. We need more sheriffs. The system is in crisis.
RiotTV was nothing more than a political stunt. I accept that being “tough on crime” is attractive to voters – but the manner in which the government tried to appear tough on crime was only intended as a diversion from the real problems our justice system is facing. I think the public saw through the political stunt from the beginning – and the public will remember this when the next provincial election is called.
