Please share this video with anyone who may be interested! Watch all our webinars: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4dDQscmFYu_ezxuxnAE61hx4JlqAKXpR In this webinar: ● An overview of the court case including the main details, the plaintiffs, and what they were seeking, ● Analysis of the evidence presented during the proceedings, ● What the decision means for patients and producers, and ● Things to come for medical marijuana in Canada View the video: https://youtu.be/n80-7qGiEnU Follow our social media accounts: Twitter - https://twitter.com/survivornetca Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/CanadianSurvivorNet Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/survivornetwork YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/Survivornetca

1. Victory for growers & patients in medical
marijuana decision, but what's next?
Presented by: Trina Fraser

3. WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT?
• Govt decision to transition from Marihuana
Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) to
Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations
(MMPR)
• Elimination of personal cultivation licences
and move to access of medical cannabis
exclusively via licensed producers

4. WHO ARE THE PLAINTIFFS?
1. Neil Allard – 60 years old – chronic fatigue
syndrome – ATP/PPL - prescription 20 grams per
day
2. Shawn Davey – 38 years old – permanent brain
injury from MVA - ATP/PPL - prescription 25
grams per day
3. Tanya Beemish – 27 years old – Type 1 diabetes
and gastroparesis - ATP – prescription 5 grams
per day
4. Dave Hebert – 32 years old – c/l spouse of Ms.
Beemish - DPL

5. WHAT WERE THE
PLAINTIFFS SEEKING?
1. Exemption from relevant provisions in
CDSA
2. Go back to MMAR
• Strike down MMPR (or aspects thereof,
including “dried marihuana” restriction,
possession limit, etc.)

6. CANADIAN CHARTER OF
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
• 1) The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it
subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by
law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society.
• 7) Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security
of the person and the right not to be deprived
thereof except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice.

7. ANALYSIS
• Was s.7 engaged? YES
• Liberty:
– (1) right not to have one’s physical liberty endangered
by risk of imprisonment (if they must purchase
outside of MMPR due to affordability/strain
preference or exceed 150g);
– (2) right to make decisions of fundamental personal
importance (direct medical treatment)
• Security:
– no access to medication if you cannot access an LP,
resulting in physical/psychological suffering

8. ANALYSIS
• Are the restrictions on access “in accordance with the
principles of fundamental justice”? NO
• Objectives of MMPR: (1) reduction of risk to public health
and safety; (2) improved access to medical cannabis
• Personal cultivation risks alleged by govt: Fire, mould, theft,
violence, diversion
• No rational connection found between restrictions and risk
reduction
• Access was not improved and in fact was further restricted
• Therefore MMPR is arbitrary and overbroad, thus contrary
to principles of fundamental justice

9. ANALYSIS
• Is the infringing MMPR saved by s.1? NO
• Cannot be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”
• “Plaintiffs have…demonstrated that cannabis can be produced
safely and securely with limited risk to public safety”
• Fire risk can be addressed by compliance with electrical safety
requirements
• Mould risk can be addressed with proper ventilation systems
• Theft and violence risk can be addressed with a security system
• Risk of diversion exists with LPs as well
• Therefore MMPR declared to be invalid

10. EVIDENCE
• Judge’s findings based upon acceptance of
Plaintiffs’ evidence and rejection of much of
the govt’s evidence
• Key witness found to be “so philosophically
against marihuana…that his Report lacked
balance and objectivity…His assumptions
and analysis were…flawed…The factual
basis of his various opinions was uncovered
as inaccurate”.

11. EVIDENCE
• “dried marihuana” restriction moot due to
SCC decision in R. v. Smith
• Max possession to 150 gram upheld
• “[t]he possession cap still allows one to
possess more than their necessary amount of
marihuana”

12. REMEDY
• Not feasible to strike out portions of the MMPR to
achieve constitutionality
• Not feasible to reinstate MMAR
• Court not willing to suspend offence provisions of the
CDSA vis-à-vis medical cannabis
• “The appropriate resolution, following the declaration
of invalidity of the MMPR, is to suspend the operation
of the declaration of invalidity to permit Canada to
enact a new or parallel medical marihuana regime”
• 6 month suspension
• Injunction continues for now

13. MARCH 21/14 INTERIM ORDER
• 3-part test for interim injunction
• Certain ATP/PPL/DPL’s remain in force pending
trial
• Possession limited to maximum of 150 grams

14. WHO FALLS WITHIN THE INJUNCTION?
• Plaintiffs holding:
– (1) valid ATP as of March 21/14;
• AND
– (2) valid PPL or DPL as of September 30/13 (or
PPL/DPL issued after September 30/13).
• Health Canada decided to treat the injunction
as applying to all MMAR’s who met criteria
but interpreted the order as requiring both
criteria to be met

16. UNCERTAIN IF INJUNCTION APPLIES TO
YOU?
• Seek advice from a lawyer
• “Health Canada does not provide legal advice
as to the validity of licences or authorizations
under the MMAR. Individuals wishing to
determine whether they fall under the Federal
Court Order should seek independent legal
advice.”

17. ATTEMPTS TO VARY THE INJUNCTION
ORDER
• Problems identified by Plaintiffs (2 of which
didn’t qualify):
– (1) Some MMAR’s “fell through the cracks” due to
qualifying dates
– (2) No ability to change address
• Crown appealed & Plaintiffs cross-appealed
• Sent back to Justice Manson for
reconsideration

18. ATTEMPTS TO VARY THE INJUNCTION
ORDER
• Order reconfirmed by Justice Manson (“I specifically
chose the relevant transitional dates to limit the
availability of the injunctive relief…[T]he remedy I
granted was intended to avoid unduly impacting the
viability of the MMPR and to take into consideration
the practical implications of the MMAR…no longer
being in force”)
• Appeal of this ‘reconsideration’ was later abandoned
• Motion to vary dismissed by Phelan J. on July 15/15

19. WHAT DOES THE
DECISION MEAN FOR
PATIENTS?
• It does not mean you have an unfettered right to cultivate
• For now, NO CHANGE (whether or not you fall within
injunction)
• Govt has until March 25th to appeal to Federal Court of
Appeal
• If it does appeal, they will apply for a stay of the 6 month
deadline
• If it doesn’t appeal, has 6 months to implement new
version of MMPR which includes personal cultivation right

20. WHAT WILL PERSONAL
CULTIVATION LOOK
LIKE?
• At this point we don’t know
• Could be very similar to MMAR or very different
• Will have to address issues such as production limits,
possession limits, permissible locations
• Will a medical document be required?
• Will designated growers be permitted?
• Will multiple patients/DGs be permitted to grow at the
same address?
• Will we see additional restrictions at municipal level?

21. WILL THIS AFFECT
MMPR LP’s?
• Personal cultivation will have little effect
• Bigger challenges are dispensaries and
doctors
• Big question for LPs is whether the
decision will precipitate other MMPR
changes

22. WHAT OTHER CHANGES COULD WE
SEE?
• Retail MMPR sales (pharmacies, dispensaries)
• Centralized registration system for MMPR
• Relaxed security requirements for LPs

23. Contact Info
Trina Fraser, Partner
BrazeauSeller.LLP
www.brazeauseller.com
tfraser@brazeauseller.com
Twitter: @trinafraser

24. Canadian Cancer Survivor Network
Contact Info
Canadian Cancer Survivor Network
1750 Courtwood Crescent, Suite 210
Ottawa, ON K2C 2B5
Telephone / Téléphone : 613-898-1871
E-mail jmanthorne@survivornet.ca or mforrest@survivornet.ca
Web site www.survivornet.ca
Blog: http://jackiemanthornescancerblog.blogspot.com/
Twitter: @survivornetca
Facebook: www.facebook.com/CanadianSurvivorNet
Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/survivornetwork/