R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine

Last updated
R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: May 6, 2003
Judgment: December 23, 2003
Full case nameDavid Malmo‑Levine v Her Majesty The Queen; Victor Eugene Caine v Her Majesty The Queen
Citations [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74
Prior historyR. v. Malmo-Levine, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1025 (QL) (S.C.); R. v. Caine, [1998] B.C.J. No. 885 (QL)(Prov. Ct.); R. v. Malmo-Levine et al., 2000 BCCA 335
RulingAppeal dismissed.
Holding
Parliament is authorized to criminalize possession of marijuana. Criminalization of marijuana does not infringe on Section 7 rights in the Charter. The harm principle is not a fundamental principle of natural justice.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps
Reasons given
MajorityGonthier and Binnie JJ., joined by McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.
DissentArbour J. (in Caine)
DissentLeBel J. (in Caine)
DissentDeschamps J. (in Caine)

R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that Parliament had the authority to criminalize the possession and trafficking of marijuana, and that power did not infringe on the section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

Contents

The Court found the harm principle is not a fundamental aspect of natural justice in Canada relevant to section 7 of the Charter.

Background

The decision involves two cases. The first was where David Malmo-Levine, a "marijuana/freedom activist", ran an organization in East Vancouver called the "Harm Reduction Club", which attempts to reduce the harm associated with marijuana use by educating users and the public about the drug and provide the drug at cost. In December 1996 the police raided the Harm Reduction Club and seized 316 grams of marijuana charging Malmo-Levine with possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The second case involved the 1993 arrest of Victor Caine for possession of marijuana. Caine was in his van by the ocean when two RCMP officers approached him. He was stopped and a 0.5 gram were found in his possession.

Both Caine and Malmo-Levine challenged the constitutionality of the criminalization of marijuana under the Narcotics Control Act.

Malmo-Levine's argument focused on whether there should be a requirement of harm for criminal law. He argued that the constitutional power to enact criminal law under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 is limited to conduct that causes harm. He further argued that the "harm principle" should be a principle of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Supreme Court of Canada

Malmo-Levine and Caine appealed the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada which heard the case on May 6, 2003. On December 23, 2003, Justice Charles Gonthier and Ian Binnie jointly authored the majority decision.

Majority decision

Gonthier and Binnie JJ., writing the majority, rejected all the arguments for the requirements of harm under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and section 7 of the Charter. They held that Parliament need not establish harm but only a reasonable apprehension of harm.

Gonthier and Binnie looked towards R v Hauser , which held that narcotics were a new matter not considered in 1867 and so falls under the peace, order and good government power. They suggest that this case was likely wrong as narcotics is clearly a matter of criminal law.

The criminal law power, they state, includes the protection of vulnerable groups. Thus the government is able to control activities for the protection of drug users and society.

Dissenting opinions

Three Justices, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel, and Marie Deschamps, each authored individual dissenting opinions exclusively on the Caine case.

Aftermath

The legalization of cannabis possession and use was an aspect of the campaign of Justin Trudeau who became Prime Minister in 2015. [1] Shortly after election, the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation was convened to study the issue. The Task Force released a report on the matter on December 13, 2016. [2]

On April 13, 2017, Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould introduced two bills the House of Commons of Canada for the legalization of cannabis. The first was the Cannabis Act , which legalized recreational cannabis use. The second An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) (Bill C-46) increased police powers related to impaired driving such as authorizing mandatory alcohol screening without suspicion that the person is impaired; and increased punishments for driving related offences in the Criminal Code.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Victimless crime</span> Concept in criminology

A victimless crime is an illegal act that typically either directly involves only the perpetrator or occurs between consenting adults. Because it is consensual in nature, whether there involves a victim is a matter of debate. Definitions of victimless crimes vary in different parts of the world and different law systems, but usually include possession of any illegal contraband, recreational drug use, prostitution and prohibited sexual behavior between consenting adults, assisted suicide, and smuggling among other similar infractions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 215</span> California law permitting medical marijuana

Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law permitting the use of medical cannabis despite marijuana's lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

<i>R v Oakes</i> 1986 Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that established the legal test for whether a government action infringing a right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is justified. David Oakes challenged the validity of provisions under the Narcotic Control Act that provided a person found in possession of a narcotic, absent of evidence to the contrary, must be convicted of trafficking the narcotic. Oakes contented the presumption of trafficking violated the presumption of innocence guarantee under Section 11(d) of the Charter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</span> Indian act of parliament

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, commonly referred to as the NDPS Act, is an Act of the Parliament of India that prohibits a person the production/manufacturing/cultivation, possession, sale, purchasing, transport, storage, and/or consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 23 August 1985. It was passed by both the Houses of Parliament, received assent from then President Giani Zail Singh on 16 September 1985, and came into force on 14 November 1985. The NDPS Act has since been amended four times — in 1988, 2001, 2014 and 2021. The Act extends to the whole of India and it applies also to all Indian citizens outside India and to all persons on ships and aircraft registered in India.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Le Dain Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs</span> Canadian government commission

The Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, often referred to as the Le Dain Commission after its chair Dean Gerald Le Dain, was a Canadian government commission that was begun in 1969 and completed its work in 1972.

<i>R v Clay</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Clay [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735, 2003 SCC 75 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the prohibition to possess marijuana. The accused claimed that his section 7 Charter rights were violated. The Court dismissed the claim.

R v Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, where, In a four to three decision, the Court upheld the federal Narcotic Control Act as constitutional under the peace, order and good government power. This case is particularly unusual as the Act had previously held to be constitutional under the Criminal law power in the decision of Industrial Acceptance Corp. v. The Queen [1953] 2 S.C.R. 273.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal history of cannabis in the United States</span>

In the United States, increased restrictions and labeling of cannabis as a poison began in many states from 1906 onward, and outright prohibitions began in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s cannabis was regulated as a drug in every state, including 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. The first national regulation was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drug liberalization</span> Process of reducing drug prohibition laws

Drug liberalization is a drug policy process of decriminalizing or legalizing the use or sale of prohibited drugs. Variations of drug liberalization include: drug legalization, drug re-legalization and drug decriminalization. Proponents of drug liberalization may favor a regulatory regime for the production, marketing, and distribution of some or all currently illegal drugs in a manner analogous to that for alcohol, caffeine and tobacco.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drug policy of Canada</span> Overview of the drug policy of Canada

Canada's drug regulations are measures of the Food and Drug Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In relation to controlled and restricted drug products, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act establishes eight schedules of drugs and new penalties for the possession, trafficking, exportation and production of controlled substances as defined by the Governor-in-Council. Drug policy of Canada has traditionally favoured punishment for the smallest of offences, but this convention was partially broken in 1996 with the passing of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.

In the early 21st century, advocacy for drug legalization has increased in Latin America. Spearheading the movement, the Uruguayan government announced in 2012 plans to legalize state-controlled sales of marijuana in order to fight drug-related crimes.

This page is about the penalties juveniles are subject to if found guilty of trafficking Cannabis. Most juveniles suffer the same, or very similar, penalties as adults. However this varies between countries, cultures and according to where the nation's minimum age of criminal responsibility lies. Information and laws regarding minors are difficult to find as they are usually classified or protected. This is due to laws preventing crimes committed, under the minimum age of criminal responsibility, being kept on a criminal record.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Slovakia</span> Use of cannabis in Slovakia

Cannabis in Slovakia is illegal for all purposes and possession of even small amounts of the drug can lead to lengthy prison terms. Possession or use of small amounts of cannabis is punishable by up to eight years in prison. In April 2012, The Wall Street Journal reported that Robert Fico, the incoming Slovak prime minister, might push for partial legalisation of cannabis possession, and has argued for the legalisation of possession of up to three doses of cannabis for personal use.

The list includes and details significant events that occurred in the global history of national-level implementations of, or changes made to, laws surrounding the use, sale, or production of the psychoactive drug cannabis.

Cannabis in South Korea is illegal for recreational use. In November 2018, the country's Narcotics Control Act was amended and use of medical cannabis became legal, making South Korea the first country in East Asia to legalize medical cannabis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal history of cannabis in Canada</span> Aspect of history

The Cannabis Act (C-45) of June, 2018 paved the way for the legalization of cannabis in Canada on 17 October 2018. Police and prosecution services in all Canadian jurisdictions are currently capable of pursuing criminal charges for cannabis marketing without a licence issued by Health Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the federal Parliament has the power to criminalize the possession of cannabis and that doing so does not infringe upon the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Ontario Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Ontario have, however, held that the absence of a statutory provision for medical marijuana is unconstitutional, and to that extent the federal law is of no force and/or effect if a prescription is obtained. The recreational use of cannabis has been legalized by the federal government, and took effect on 17 October 2018.

<i>Cannabis Act</i> 2018 Canadian law legalizing recreational cannabis use

The Cannabis Act is a law which legalized recreational cannabis use in Canada in combination with its companion legislation Bill C-46, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code. The law is a milestone in the legal history of cannabis in Canada, alongside the 1923 prohibition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Quebec</span>

Cannabis in Quebec became legal when the national Cannabis Act went into force on 17 October 2018. Cannabis in Canada has been legal for medicinal purposes since 2001 under conditions outlined in the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, later superseded by the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations, issued by Health Canada and seed, grain, and fibre production was permitted under licence by Health Canada.

References

  1. Jacob Sullum (October 30, 2015), "Canada is on the brink of making marijuana legal", Newsweek, Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau, Canada's new prime minister, ran on a promise to legalize marijuana.
  2. A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada (Report). Government of Canada. November 30, 2016.