by Jason Tarnow | Jun 16, 2015 | Crime, Police
In a ground-breaking 7-0 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that to restrict medical cannabis users to consuming cannabis only in “dried” form, is against theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Specifically, it violates a person’s right and liberty “in a manner that is arbitrary and hence is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
The legislation regulating marijuana is contained within the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Section 4 and Section 5 which prohibited the possession or sale of anything other than “dried cannabis” are now of no effect.
This comes as a great victory for marijuana advocates across Canada – and in particular, to Owen Smith, whose personal dilemma sparked the need for change within the legislation.
Medical marijuana users are now free to medicate in whichever way they find most beneficial, whether it be to feast on edibles (cookies, chocolate, brownies, etc – you can incorporate THC into almost anything!) vape (similar to smoking, but with a much less harsh effect on a person’s respiratory system), dab, etc. There are creams that contain THC that provide great relief to people with painful, chronic physical conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.
Not everyone is as thrilled as Owen Smith – Health Minister Rona Ambrose expressed outrage at the High Court’s ruling, stating the following:
“Let’s remember, there’s only one authority in Canada that has the authority and the expertise to make a drug into a medicine and that’s Health Canada,”
“Marijuana has never gone through the regulatory approval process at Health Canada, which of course, requires a rigorous safety review and clinical trials with scientific evidence.”
While Ms. Ambrose declared that the Federal Government will fight against the normalization of marijuana, it appears that for now, they’re in the weeds.
Heres a link to a new’s story done by Global News
The Cannabis Crusade continues, check back soon for more!
by Jason Tarnow | Jun 2, 2015 | Crime
In April 2008, the town of Merritt, B.C. was cast under a dark shadow when Allan Schoenborn murdered his 3 young children inside their family home while in the midst of a psychotic break.
After a 3 month Jury Trial in Kamloops, B.C., Schoenborn was found to be Not Criminally Responsible (“NCR”) for the 3 murders. (Link to original story) Since the time of his arrest he has remained at a Forensic Psychiatric facility in Coquitlam, B.C, and is monitored by the Forensic Psychiatrics Services Commission.
Just recently, however, he appeared in front of the B.C. Review Board (link for more info) and was granted escorted access into the community. Mr. Schoenborn must abide by a strict set of conditions when he is in the community, including abstaining from the use of drugs and alcohol, no access to any sort of weapon, no contact with a number of different individuals, consent to urine analysis testing whenever it is requested of him, and he must keep the peace and be on good behavior.
The decision of the B.C. Review Board is not one that was met without criticism – in fact, the overall response is a negative one. Citizens are concerned for the safety of the general public, and with Mr. Schoenborn’s well documented criminal history, it is difficult to sway the public’s collective opinion. The Mayor of Coquitlam, Greg Moore, has stated that he will urge council to have the Board re-evaluate their decision.
The problem that we are faced with here is one that turns its ugly head every time a prolific or well-known offender is afforded the privilege of re-joining society. While concerns will inevitably be raised, people must understand that a qualified, experienced and well-advised B.C. Supreme Court Judge made the determination that the Accused was NCR due to a mental disorder. The subsequent developments in his case, for example the most recent decision to allow him escorted visits into the community, come in response to the progress Schoenborn has made over the past several years.
It is important to note that determinations of NCR for homicide charges are not commonplace within the Canadian Judicial System. In fact, over the span of 2005 – 2012, there were only 13 homicide cases before the Courts where a Judge determined that the Accused was Not Criminally Responsible. This statistic serves to prove that these decisions are not made in haste. They are reserved for cases where an Accused person, by way of mental disease or disorder, does not possess the culpability or rationale to be held accountable for their actions. Once under the care of qualified doctors and mental health professionals, and aided by the appropriate medications, it would seem only natural that the offender would begin to improve. That is, after all, the point of having a person committed to a Psychiatric Facility – by stripping them of their rights and freedoms, we undertake the responsibility of developing a collaborative plan to treat their illness.
No one is handing Mr. Schoenborn a get-out-of-jail-free card. He is maneuvering his way through a system that is intended to identify, diagnose, educate, treat, and heal. A system that is designed to protect us – from each other, and when necessary, from ourselves.
by Jason Tarnow | May 5, 2015 | Crime, Police
Ian Pumphrey, who was acquitted of the allegation that he was talking on his cellphone while driving, was in the Yukon Court of Appeal this week where an Appellate Court Judge ruled that he was indeed guilty of using a mobile device while driving.
In the Yukon Supreme Court, Pumphrey successfully argued that because his cellphone was wedged between his ear and shoulder, he technically was using his device “hands free”. The Crown appealed the decision of the Supreme Court Judge, and, when the case was heard in the Yukon Court of Appeal earlier this week, a Judge agreed with the Crown and found Mr. Pumphrey guilty.
The Judge stated that the Supreme Court Judge had erred when he ruled that he had no jurisdiction to interpret the ambiguous language of the Motor Vehicle Act. The Appellate Court Judge advised that it is the Courts duty to interpret language where it is unclear. He went on to say that in his interpretation, hands-free means “use without being held by the operator in any fashion”. He imposed a suspended sentence and one day of probation on Pumphrey. He also advised that he had wished to grant Mr. Pumphrey an absolute discharge, due to the work he had done in representing himself, but declared that he did not have the jurisdiction to impose such a sentence.
Bottom line: If you have to take that call, just pull over.
Link to story here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/appeal-judge-convicts-yukon-man-in-hands-free-cellphone-case-1.3061799
by Jason Tarnow | Apr 23, 2015 | Legal Rights, Politics
A student from Russia who has been studying in B.C. will find out on Wednesday if he will be ordered to leave Canada as a result of his recent criminal convictions. Vladislav Anautov, 23, plead guilty in Kamloops Provincial Court to an assault on his girlfriend that took place on February 27 in the off-campus apartment they shared together. The young man was free on Bail pending the outcome of his sentencing hearing – until the RCMP found his girlfriend hiding in his closet while checking to ensure he was abiding by the Court imposed conditions of his Bail (including a condition of having no contact with the victim). Anautov was promptly arrested and placed in custody. On Monday, April 20, 2015, he plead guilty to breaching the terms of his Bail order.
Since Anautov is in Canada on a student visa, an investigation was launched by the Canadian Border Services Agency to determine his immigration status. It has been reported that Vladislav will leave Canada on his own free will, which the Crown hopes to supplement with an Order from the Court. The Crown hopes to avoid having an immigration hearing, which could be both time consuming and costly.
A lot of people will read this article and wonder why the young woman is still in contact with her alleged abuser. You may be surprised to learn that this is not an uncommon occurrence in assault files. It is partially related to the fact that there is a common misconception about the charge process in Canada. Once you have called the police about an incident and they have become involved, the charge approval process is, for the most part, out of your hands. Individuals do not charge other individuals. Police agencies forward the results of their investigation to the charge approval sector of Crown Counsel, who will decide if there is enough evidence to charge the Accused (likelihood of conviction). That is why the style of cause in criminal proceedings heads the Queen against the Accused. For example:
R. v. John Smith à R stands for Regina, which represents our Queen (even though her name is Elizabeth. When we have a King, the R represents Rex).
We are a commonwealth country, and are sovereign to the (for now) Queen.
This is why domestic assault files are often difficult to prosecute. Again and again we see the complainant (the victim) wanting to withdraw from the process, or, completely refusing to participate in any part of said process that will lead to trouble for the Accused. It is very common to see an Accused person breach the terms of their Bail for this very reason – because both parties want to remain in contact.
To sum it up: If you have been charged with assault stemming from a domestic incident, and have had a no-contact order put in place as a condition of your release, do not contact that person directly or indirectly. If they send you a text, do not respond to it. Do not answer their calls, or speak to them through a 3rd party – just call us.
by Jason Tarnow | Apr 17, 2015 | Legal Aid, Police
Ian Pumphrey was back before the Yukon Courts earlier this week to represent himself in an Appeal launched by the Yukon Government.
In January of 2015, the Honourable Judge Luther found that Pumphrey wasn’t breaking the law by talking on the phone while driving, having his cellphone suspended between his ear and shoulder. It is, of course, illegal to drive while talking on your cellphone in the Yukon Territory – however, hands free devices are permitted. Since Mr. Pumphrey clearly was not using his hands to talk on the phone, he was not in violation of any regulations of the Motor Vehicle Act.
The Yukon Government appealed Judge Luther’s decision before a Supreme Court Judge, saying that in dismissing the ticket, he took the meaning of “hands free” too literally.
Mr. Pumphrey is of the opinion that the Government’s appeal is a waste of time and money – that would be better spent clarifying the legislation. He also stated that he will be seeking $15,000 in compensation from the Yukon Government in relation to all of the time he has spent working on the Appeal.
The Supreme Court Judge reserved decision on the matter.
