R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) (2003), 314 N.R. 1 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2003] N.R. TBEd. DE.050
David Malmo-Levine (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenors)
(28026)
Victor Eugene Caine (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenors)
(28148; 2003 SCC 74; 2003 CSC 74)
Indexed As: R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
December 23, 2003.
Summary:
An accused (Malmo-Levine) charged with possession of marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking challenged the constitutionality of criminalizing possession. The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 961, held that the provisions of the Act did not infringe Malmo-Levine’s s. 7 Charter liberty rights. Malmo-Levine was convicted of both offences. Another accused (Caine) charged with possession of marihuana also challenged the constitutionality of the possession provisions of the Act. The British Columbia Provincial Court ruled that it was bound by the decision in Malmo-Levine that the provisions did not infringe s. 7 of the Charter. Caine was also convicted. Both accused appealed and the appeals were heard together.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Prowse, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 218; 226 W.A.C. 218, dismissed the appeals. The deprivation of liberty resulting from the availability of imprisonment accorded with the “harm principle” and did not violate s. 7 as it was not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. Both accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., dissenting in Caine’s appeal and dissenting in part in Malmo-Levine’s appeal, dismissed the appeals. The criminal prohibition against simple possession of marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking were constitutionally valid under the federal criminal law power (Constitution Act, s. 91). Although the availability of imprisonment for simple possession triggered liberty rights, such deprivation was not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.
Civil Rights – Topic 660.1
Liberty – Limitations on – Possession of a narcotic – Marihuana – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “a conviction for the possession of marihuana for personal use carries no mandatory minimum sentence. In practice, most first offenders are given a conditional discharge. Imprisonment is generally reserved for situations that also involve trafficking or hard drugs. Except in very exceptional circumstances, imprisonment for simple possession of marihuana would constitute a demonstrably unfit sentence and, if imposed, would rightly be set aside on appeal. … The mere fact of the availability of imprisonment in a statute dealing with a variety of prohibited drugs does not, in our view, make the criminalization of possession of a psychoactive drug like marihuana contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.” – See paragraph 4.
Civil Rights – Topic 684
Liberty – Principles of fundamental justice – Harm principle – An accused submitted that where marihuana use was not harmful “to others”, the criminalization of possession of marihuana violated liberty rights in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) – The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed – The “harm principle” was not a principle of fundamental justice – The court stated that “for a rule or principle to constitute a principle of fundamental justice for the purposes of s. 7, it must be a legal principle about which there is significant societal consensus that it is fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate, and it must be identified with sufficient precision to yield a manageable standard against which to measure deprivations of life, liberty or security of the person.” – The harm principle required harm that was not de minimis or not insignificant or trivial – The harm need not be serious and substantial – Criminalization of marihuana possession was neither irrational nor arbitrary – It was rationally connected to a reasonable apprehension of harm – Imprisonment was not restricted to being a sanction for criminal conduct that was potentially harmful to others – There was no general prohibition against criminalizing conduct harmful only to oneself – Even if punishment was relevant to a s. 7 analysis (rather than s. 12), the constitutional standard was the same (i.e. gross disproportionality) – Even if imprisonment for simple possession was imposed and violated the standard of gross disproportionality, the remedy would address the range of available penalties and not the decriminalization of the underlying conduct of possession – See paragraphs 102 to 162.
Civil Rights – Topic 725
Liberty – Charter of Rights and Freedoms -Liberty defined – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that liberty was broader than freedom from physical restraint – It included “the right to an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy wherein individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference. … This is true only to the extent that such matters ‘can properly be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal such that, by their very nature, they implicate basic choices going to the core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence’ … the Constitution cannot be stretched to afford protection to whatever activity an individual chooses to define as central to his or her lifestyle [eg. smoking marihuana, obsessive interest in golf, eating fatty foods]. … Lifestyle choices of this order are not, we think, ‘basic choices going to the core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence’ … [the accused’s] desire to build a lifestyle around the recreational use of marihuana does not attract Charter protection. There is no free-standing constitutional right to smoke ‘pot’ for recreational purposes.” – See paragraphs 85 to 87.
Civil Rights – Topic 5645.1
Equality and protection of the law – Particular cases – Drug offences – An accused submitted that the criminalization of marihuana possession violated his s. 15 Charter equality rights, because he had a “substance orientation” which was a personal characteristic analogous to other s. 15 grounds such as sexual orientation – The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submission – A lifestyle choice such as “smoking pot” was not a “personal characteristic” in the sense required to trigger s. 15 protection – See paragraphs 184 to 185.
Civil Rights – Topic 8547
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – Particular words and phrases – Principles of fundamental justice – An accused submitted that the criminalization of simple marihuana possession violated his s. 7 Charter liberty right in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice – The accused argued that “societal interests” were relevant to a s. 1 analysis, but had nothing to do with the principles of fundamental justice – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “despite certain similarities between the balancing of interests in ss. 7 and 1, there are important differences. Firstly, the issue under s. 7 is the delineation of the boundaries of the rights and principles in question whereas under s. 1 the question is whether an infringement may be justified. … Secondly, it was affirmed that under s. 7 it is the claimant who bears the onus of proof throughout. It is only if an infringement of s. 7 is established that the onus switches to the Crown to justify the infringement under s. 1. Thirdly, the range of interests to be taken into account under s. 1 is much broader than those relevant to s. 7. … The balancing of individual and societal interests within s. 7 is only relevant when elucidating a particular principle of fundamental justice. … The delineation of the principles of fundamental justice must inevitably take into account the social nature of our collective existence. To that limited extent, societal values play a role in the delineation of the boundaries of the rights and principles in question.” – See paragraphs 94 to 99.
Constitutional Law – Topic 25
General – Raising constitutional issues – Proof required – Legislative facts versus adjudicative facts – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “while the courts apply the requirements of judicial notice less stringently to the admission of legislative fact than to adjudicative fact … courts should nevertheless proceed cautiously to take judicial notice even as ‘legislative facts’ of matters that are reasonably open to dispute, particularly where they relate to an issue that could be dispositive” – See paragraph 28.
Constitutional Law – Topic 4604
Peace, order and good government clause -General principles – Scope of the power – The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the three instances in which the federal residual power (peace, order and good government) applied: “(i) the existence of a national emergency; (ii) with respect to a subject matter which did not exist at the time of Confederation and is clearly not in a class of matters of a merely local or private nature; (iii) where the subject matter ‘goes beyond local or provincial concern and must, from its inherent nature, be the concern of the Dominion as a whole'” – The court stated that since the criminalization of marihuana possession was authorized under the federal criminal law power, it was unnecessary to decide whether it was supportable under the peace, order and good government clause -See paragraphs 63 to 72.
Constitutional Law – Topic 4712
Peace, order and good government clause -Particular legislative purposes – Public health and safety – [See
Constitutional Law – Topic 4604
].
Constitutional Law – Topic 6441
Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) – Criminal law -General – Criminal law defined – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “for a law to be classified as a criminal law, it must possess three prerequisites: a valid criminal law purpose backed by a prohibition and a penalty. … The criminal law power extends to those laws that are designed to promote public peace, safety, order, health or other legitimate public purpose. … some legitimate public purpose must underlie the prohibition.” – See paragraph 74.
Constitutional Law – Topic 6450
Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) – Criminal law -General – Elements of a criminal law statute – General – [See
Constitutional Law – Topic 6441
].
Constitutional Law – Topic 6509
Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) – Criminal law -Respecting particular matters – Drug legislation – An accused submitted that Parliament had no power to criminalize the possession of marihuana for personal use under the federal criminal law power – The Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed previous decisions upholding the constitutionality of the Narcotic Control Act under the criminal law power – The purpose of the Act fit within the criminal law power, which included the protection of vulnerable groups from self-inflicted harms – The protection of chronic users and adolescents who had not yet become chronic users was a valid criminal law objective – The court stated that “the control of a ‘psychoactive drug’ that ’causes alteration of mental function’ clearly raises issues of public health and safety, both for the user as well as for those in the broader society affected by his or her conduct. The use of marihuana is therefore a proper subject matter for the exercise of the criminal law power.” – See paragraphs 73 to 80.
Criminal Law – Topic 5801.1
Sentencing – General – Proportionality – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “We agree … that imprisonment would ordinarily be an unfit sentence for a conviction for simple possession of marihuana. We disagree, however, that this observation gives rise to a finding of unconstitutionality. Rather, it gives rise, in appropriate circumstances, to an ordinary sentence appeal. … where there is no minimum mandatory sentence, the mere availability of imprisonment on a charge of marihuana possession does not violate the s. 7 principle against gross disproportionality. There are circumstances, as noted, where imprisonment would constitute a fit sentence.” – See paragraphs 167 to 183.
Criminal Law – Topic 5878
Sentence – Possession, cultivation or production of a narcotic or a controlled drug or substance – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 660.1
].
Evidence – Topic 2205
Special modes of proof – Judicial notice -General principles – Constitutional cases – [See
Constitutional Law – Topic 25
].
Narcotic Control – Topic 574
Offences – Possession – General – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 660.1
and
Civil Rights – Topic 684
].
Cases Noticed:
Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Find (K.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863; 269 N.R. 149; 146 O.A.C. 236, refd to. [para. 28].
Public School Boards Association (Alta.) et al. v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 44; 251 N.R. 1; 250 A.R. 314; 213 W.A.C. 314, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Forbes (1937), 69 C.C.C. 140 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Clay (C.J.) (2003), 313 N.R. 252 (S.C.C.), affing. (2000), 135 O.A.C. 66; 49 O.R.(3d) 577 (C.A.), affing. (1997), 39 O.T.C. 81; 9 C.R.(5th) 349 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 39, 189].
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 64, 203].
R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 26 N.R. 541; 16 A.R. 91, refd to. [paras. 67, 205].
Industrial Acceptance Corp. v. R., [1953] 2 S.C.R. 273, refd to. [para. 67].
Canadian National Transportation Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General); Canadian Pacific Transport Co. and Paulley v. Canada (Attorney General), [1983] 2 S.C.R. 206; 49 N.R. 241; 49 A.R. 39, refd to. [para. 68].
R. v. Wetmore et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 284; 49 N.R. 286, refd to. [para. 68].
R. v. Sheldon S., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 254; 110 N.R. 321; 41 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 68].
Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) and Quebec (Attorney General), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914; 30 N.R. 496, refd to. [paras. 69, 216].
R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 401; 84 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 72].
Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act, [1949] S.C.R. 1, affd. [1951] A.C. 179 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 73, 202].
Margarine Reference – see Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act.
Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 201; 225 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [paras. 74, 206].
RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 74, 206].
Scowby et al. v. Glendinning et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226; 70 N.R. 241; 51 Sask.R. 208, refd to. [paras. 74, 206].
Dufresne v. R. (1912), 5 D.L.R. 501 (Que. K.B.), refd to. [para. 75].
Wakabayashi, Re, [1928] 3 D.L.R. 226 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 75].
Schneider v. British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 112; 43 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 75].
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 76, 224, 291].
R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 76, 257].
R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 76, 247].
R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 76, 241, 286].
R. v. Keegstra (J.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 381; 180 N.R. 120; 169 A.R. 50; 97 W.A.C. 50, refd to. [paras. 76, 257].
R. v. Murdock (K.P.) (2003), 173 O.A.C. 171; 11 C.R.(6th) 43 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 77, 240].
R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213; 217 N.R. 241, refd to. [paras. 77, 206].
Berryland Canning Co. v. R., [1974] 1 F.C. 91 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 77].
Standard Sausage Co. v. Lee (1933), 60 C.C.C. 265 (B.C.C.A.), addendum (1934), 61 C.C.C. 95 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].
Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [paras. 84, 190].
Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 85, 221].
R.B. v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto – see Sheena B., Re.
Godbout v. Longueuil (Ville), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; 219 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 85, 221, 279].
Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 85].
Buhlers v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 207; 194 W.A.C. 207; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 344 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].
Horsefield v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Ont.) (1999), 118 O.A.C. 291; 44 O.R.(3d) 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].
Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [paras. 95, 248].
Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 95].
R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [paras. 97, 269, 278].
R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 98].
R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714; 128 N.R. 321; 49 O.A.C. 83, refd to. [para. 118].
R. v. R.P.F. et al. (1996), 149 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 432 A.P.R. 91; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 435 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].
New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [paras. 132, 257].
R. v. Arkell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 695; 112 N.R. 175, refd to. [paras. 135, 232, 291].
R. v. Hamon (R.) (1993), 58 Q.A.C. 241; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 490 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 135].
Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 142, 270, 279].
United States of America v. Burns and Rafay, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; 265 N.R. 212; 148 B.C.A.C. 1; 243 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 142, 270].
R. v. Fleming (1992), 10 B.C.A.C. 79; 21 W.A.C. 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].
R. v. Culley (1977), 36 C.C.C.(2d) 433 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].
R. v. Dauphinee (1984), 62 N.S.R.(2d) 156; 136 A.P.R. 156 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 156].
R. v. Witter, [1997] O.J. No. 2248 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 156].
R. v. Coady (R.D.) (1994), 122 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 331; 379 A.P.R. 331; 24 W.C.B.(2d) 459 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 156].
R. v. Richards (1989), 88 N.S.R.(2d) 425; 225 A.P.R. 425 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 156].
R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90; 259 N.R. 95; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 585 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 159].
R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 159, 203].
Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385; 121 N.R. 198, refd to. [para. 159].
R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; 264 N.R. 99; 203 Sask.R. 1; 240 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 159].
R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 163, 234].
R. v. Wust (L.W.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455; 252 N.R. 332; 134 B.C.A.C. 236; 219 W.A.C. 236, refd to. [paras. 163, 234].
R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 163, 234].
R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 169].
Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 173].
Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 184].
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 185].
Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 185].
Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 185].
R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281, refd to. [para. 202].
R. v. Parker (T.) (2000), 135 O.A.C. 1; 146 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 208].
R. v. Hinchey (M.F.) and Hinchey (B.A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128; 205 N.R. 161; 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 459 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 210].
R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 217].
R. v. White (J.K.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417; 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 219].
R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 220, 291].
R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 226].
Fowler v. Padget (1798), 7 T.R. 509; 101 E.R. 1103 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 227].
R. v. Nette (D.M.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 488; 277 N.R. 301; 158 B.C.A.C. 98; 258 W.A.C. 98, refd to. [para. 227].
R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 228].
R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109, refd to. [para. 230].
R. v. Williams (H.L.) (2003), 308 N.R. 235; 231 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 686 A.P.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 233].
R. v. Pan (R.W.) (1999), 120 O.A.C. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), affd. [2001] 2 S.C.R. 344; 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 248].
R. v. C.M. (1995), 82 O.A.C. 68; 30 C.R.R.(2d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 257].
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 270].
R. v. Zingre, Wuest and Reiser, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392; 38 N.R. 272; 10 Man.R.(2d) 62, refd to. [para. 271].
R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 279].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 12].
Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [para. 12].
Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 3 [para. 12].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Alldridge, Peter, Dealing with Drug Dealing, in Simester, A.P., and Smith, A.T.H., Harm and Culpability (1996), p. 239 [para. 268].
Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 1, 1st Sess., 32nd Parl. (April 14, 1980), p. 5 [para. 21].
Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 6, 4th Sess., 24th Parl. (June 7, 1961), p. 5981 [para. 33].
Canada, House of Commons, An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Bill C-38, 2nd Sess., 37th Parl. (May 27, 2003), generally [paras. 22, 59].
Canada, Interim Report of the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Policy for the New Millennium: Working Together to Redefine Canada’s Drug Strategy (December 2002), p. 144 [para. 58].
Canada, Law Commission, What is a Crime? Challenges and Alternatives (2003), p. 17 [paras. 125, 166].
Canada, Law Reform Commission, The Criminal Law in Canadian Society (1982), p. 45 [para. 122].
Canada, Preliminary Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Cannabis (Le Dain Commission Report) (1972), generally [para. 21]; pp. 265-310 [para. 195]; 268 [para. 44].
Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (Ouimet Report) (1969), pp. 11 [para. 287]; 12 [para. 291].
Canada, Report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy (September 2002), vol. 1, pp. 151 [para. 57]; 165 [paras. 3, 55]; 166 [paras. 3, 56]; 167 [para. 56]; vol. 2, pp. 256-258 [para. 31]; 264 [para. 32]; 286 [para. 34].
Canada, Senate of Canada, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the Criminal Code, Bill S-19, 1st Sess., 30th Parl. (November 26, 1974), generally [para. 21].
Côté-Harper, Gisèle, Rainville, Pierre, and Turgeon, Jean, Traité de droit pénal canadien (4th Ed. Rev. 1998), pp. 263, 264 [para. 227].
Devlin, Patrick, The Enforcement of Morals (1965), generally [para. 238].
Feinberg, Joel, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (1984), vol. 1, pp. 12 [para. 109]; 26 [para. 239]; vol. 4, p. 323 [para. 109].
Fletcher, George P., Rethinking Criminal Law (1978), pp. 461, 462 [para. 234].
Hall, Wayne, Degenhardt, Louise, and Lynskey, Michael, National Drug Strategy: The health and psychological effects of cannabis use (2001), generally [para. 50].
Hall, Wayne, Solowij, Nadia, and Lemon, Jim, National Drug Strategy: The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis use (Hall Report) (1994), paras. 43-45 [paras. 49, 197].
Hansard – see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.
Harcourt, Bernard E., et al., Symposium: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (2001), 5 Buffalo Crim. L. Rev. 1, generally [para. 239].
Harcourt, Bernard E., The Collapse of the Harm Principle (1999), 90 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 109, pp. 111, 112 [para. 238]; 113, 185 [para. 127].
Hart, H.L.A., Immorality and Treason, in The Listener (July 30, 1959,) pp. 162, 163 [para. 109].
Hart, H.L.A., Immorality and Treason, reprinted in Morality and the Law (1971), 49, p. 51 [para. 109].
Hart, H.L.A., Punishment and the Elimination of Responsibility, in Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law (1968), p. 162 [para. 231].
Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2002 Student Ed.), p. 438 [para. 68].
House of Commons Debates – see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.
Lauzon, Benoit, Les champs légitimes du droit criminel et leur application aux manipulations génétiques transmissibles aux générations futures (2002), p. 26 [para. 238].
Le Dain Commission Report – see Canada, Preliminary Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Cannabis.
MacFarlane, Bruce A., Frater, Robert J. and Proulx, Chantal, Drug Offences in Canada (3rd Ed. 1996) (December 2002 Looseleaf Update), p. 29-20 [para. 156].
Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty (1999), pp. 51, 52 [para. 237].
Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government (1946), pp. 8 [para. 106]; 9 [paras. 106, 108].
Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty: Critical Essays (1997), generally [para. 239].
Murphy, Emily, The Black Candle (1922), pp. 332, 333 [para. 43].
Ouimet Report – see Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections.
Packer, Herbert L., The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (1968), pp. 65 [para. 258]; 262 [para. 286]; 267 [paras. 239, 249].
Ramraj, Victor V., Freedom of the Person and the Principles of Criminal Fault (2002), 18 S. Afr. J. Hum. Rts. 225, generally [para. 286].
Roach, Kent, Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 2000), p. 8 [para. 227].
Ruby, Clayton C., and Martin, Dianne L., Criminal Sentencing Digest (1993) (May 2003 Looseleaf Update – Issue 39), 30§320, p. 1251 [para. 154].
Scheid, Don E., Constructing a Theory of Punishment, Desert, and the Distribution of Punishments (1997), 10 Can. J. L. & Jur. 441, p. 484 [para. 234].
Simester, A.P., and Smith, A.T.H., Harm and Culpability (1996), pp. 239 [para. 268]; 260 [para. 264].
Simester, A.P., and Sullivan, G.R., Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine (2000), p. 21 [para. 227].
Smith, John Cyril, and Hogan, Brian, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials (7th Ed. 1999), p. 27 [para. 227].
Stephen, James Fitzjames, A History of the Criminal Law of England (1883), vol. 2, pp. 78, 79 [para. 120].
Stephen, James Fitzjames, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (2nd Ed. 1967), p. 162 [para. 238].
Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (4th Ed. 2001), p. 359 [para. 227].
von Hirsch, Andrew, and Jareborg, Nils, Gauging Criminal Harm: A Living-Standard Analysis (1991), 11 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 1, pp. 2 [para. 234]; 6 [para. 230].
von Hirsch, Andrew, Extending the Harm Principle: “Remote” Harms and Fair Imputation, in Simester, A.P., and Smith, A.T.H., Harm and Culpability (1996), 259, p. 260 [para. 264].
Wolfenden, J. et al., Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (Wolfenden Report) (1963), para. 62 [para. 238].
World Health Organization, Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, Cannabis: a health perspective and research agenda (1997), pp. 30 [para. 52, Appendix A]; 31 [Appendix A].
Counsel:
David Malmo-Levine, on his own behalf;
John W. Conroy, Q.C., for the appellant, Victor Eugene Caine;
S. David Frankel, Q.C., W. Paul Riley and Kevin Wilson, for the respondent;
Milan Rupic, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Ontario;
Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., and Matthew Pollard, for the intervenor, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;
Andrew K. Lokan and Andrew C. Lewis, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Solicitors of Record:
Conroy & Co., Abbotsford, B.C., for the appellants;
Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent;
Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Ontario;
Arvay Finlay, Victoria, B.C., for the intervenor, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;
Paliare, Roland, Rosenberg, Rothstein, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
These appeals were heard on May 6, 2003, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on December 23, 2003, when the following opinions were filed:
Gonthier and Binnie, JJ. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 188;
Arbour, J., dissenting in part in Malmo-Levine and dissenting in Caine – see paragraphs 189 to 276;
LeBel, J., dissenting in part in Malmo-Levine and dissenting in Caine – see paragraphs 277 to 280;
Deschamps, J., dissenting in part in Malmo-Levine and dissenting in Caine – see paragraphs 281 to 304.
R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) (2003), 314 N.R. 1 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2003] N.R. TBEd. DE.050
David Malmo-Levine (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenors)
(28026)
Victor Eugene Caine (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenors)
(28148; 2003 SCC 74; 2003 CSC 74)
Indexed As: R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
December 23, 2003.
Summary:
An accused (Malmo-Levine) charged with possession of marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking challenged the constitutionality of criminalizing possession. The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 961, held that the provisions of the Act did not infringe Malmo-Levine's s. 7 Charter liberty rights. Malmo-Levine was convicted of both offences. Another accused (Caine) charged with possession of marihuana also challenged the constitutionality of the possession provisions of the Act. The British Columbia Provincial Court ruled that it was bound by the decision in Malmo-Levine that the provisions did not infringe s. 7 of the Charter. Caine was also convicted. Both accused appealed and the appeals were heard together.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Prowse, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 218; 226 W.A.C. 218, dismissed the appeals. The deprivation of liberty resulting from the availability of imprisonment accorded with the "harm principle" and did not violate s. 7 as it was not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. Both accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., dissenting in Caine's appeal and dissenting in part in Malmo-Levine's appeal, dismissed the appeals. The criminal prohibition against simple possession of marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking were constitutionally valid under the federal criminal law power (Constitution Act, s. 91). Although the availability of imprisonment for simple possession triggered liberty rights, such deprivation was not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.
Civil Rights – Topic 660.1
Liberty – Limitations on – Possession of a narcotic – Marihuana – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "a conviction for the possession of marihuana for personal use carries no mandatory minimum sentence. In practice, most first offenders are given a conditional discharge. Imprisonment is generally reserved for situations that also involve trafficking or hard drugs. Except in very exceptional circumstances, imprisonment for simple possession of marihuana would constitute a demonstrably unfit sentence and, if imposed, would rightly be set aside on appeal. … The mere fact of the availability of imprisonment in a statute dealing with a variety of prohibited drugs does not, in our view, make the criminalization of possession of a psychoactive drug like marihuana contrary to the principles of fundamental justice." – See paragraph 4.
Civil Rights – Topic 684
Liberty – Principles of fundamental justice – Harm principle – An accused submitted that where marihuana use was not harmful "to others", the criminalization of possession of marihuana violated liberty rights in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) – The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed – The "harm principle" was not a principle of fundamental justice – The court stated that "for a rule or principle to constitute a principle of fundamental justice for the purposes of s. 7, it must be a legal principle about which there is significant societal consensus that it is fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate, and it must be identified with sufficient precision to yield a manageable standard against which to measure deprivations of life, liberty or security of the person." – The harm principle required harm that was not de minimis or not insignificant or trivial – The harm need not be serious and substantial – Criminalization of marihuana possession was neither irrational nor arbitrary – It was rationally connected to a reasonable apprehension of harm – Imprisonment was not restricted to being a sanction for criminal conduct that was potentially harmful to others – There was no general prohibition against criminalizing conduct harmful only to oneself – Even if punishment was relevant to a s. 7 analysis (rather than s. 12), the constitutional standard was the same (i.e. gross disproportionality) – Even if imprisonment for simple possession was imposed and violated the standard of gross disproportionality, the remedy would address the range of available penalties and not the decriminalization of the underlying conduct of possession – See paragraphs 102 to 162.
Civil Rights – Topic 725
Liberty – Charter of Rights and Freedoms -Liberty defined – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that liberty was broader than freedom from physical restraint – It included "the right to an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy wherein individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference. … This is true only to the extent that such matters 'can properly be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal such that, by their very nature, they implicate basic choices going to the core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence' … the Constitution cannot be stretched to afford protection to whatever activity an individual chooses to define as central to his or her lifestyle [eg. smoking marihuana, obsessive interest in golf, eating fatty foods]. … Lifestyle choices of this order are not, we think, 'basic choices going to the core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence' … [the accused's] desire to build a lifestyle around the recreational use of marihuana does not attract Charter protection. There is no free-standing constitutional right to smoke 'pot' for recreational purposes." – See paragraphs 85 to 87.
Civil Rights – Topic 5645.1
Equality and protection of the law – Particular cases – Drug offences – An accused submitted that the criminalization of marihuana possession violated his s. 15 Charter equality rights, because he had a "substance orientation" which was a personal characteristic analogous to other s. 15 grounds such as sexual orientation – The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submission – A lifestyle choice such as "smoking pot" was not a "personal characteristic" in the sense required to trigger s. 15 protection – See paragraphs 184 to 185.
Civil Rights – Topic 8547
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – Particular words and phrases – Principles of fundamental justice – An accused submitted that the criminalization of simple marihuana possession violated his s. 7 Charter liberty right in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice – The accused argued that "societal interests" were relevant to a s. 1 analysis, but had nothing to do with the principles of fundamental justice – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "despite certain similarities between the balancing of interests in ss. 7 and 1, there are important differences. Firstly, the issue under s. 7 is the delineation of the boundaries of the rights and principles in question whereas under s. 1 the question is whether an infringement may be justified. … Secondly, it was affirmed that under s. 7 it is the claimant who bears the onus of proof throughout. It is only if an infringement of s. 7 is established that the onus switches to the Crown to justify the infringement under s. 1. Thirdly, the range of interests to be taken into account under s. 1 is much broader than those relevant to s. 7. … The balancing of individual and societal interests within s. 7 is only relevant when elucidating a particular principle of fundamental justice. … The delineation of the principles of fundamental justice must inevitably take into account the social nature of our collective existence. To that limited extent, societal values play a role in the delineation of the boundaries of the rights and principles in question." – See paragraphs 94 to 99.
Constitutional Law – Topic 25
General – Raising constitutional issues – Proof required – Legislative facts versus adjudicative facts – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "while the courts apply the requirements of judicial notice less stringently to the admission of legislative fact than to adjudicative fact … courts should nevertheless proceed cautiously to take judicial notice even as 'legislative facts' of matters that are reasonably open to dispute, particularly where they relate to an issue that could be dispositive" – See paragraph 28.
Constitutional Law – Topic 4604
Peace, order and good government clause -General principles – Scope of the power – The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the three instances in which the federal residual power (peace, order and good government) applied: "(i) the existence of a national emergency; (ii) with respect to a subject matter which did not exist at the time of Confederation and is clearly not in a class of matters of a merely local or private nature; (iii) where the subject matter 'goes beyond local or provincial concern and must, from its inherent nature, be the concern of the Dominion as a whole'" – The court stated that since the criminalization of marihuana possession was authorized under the federal criminal law power, it was unnecessary to decide whether it was supportable under the peace, order and good government clause -See paragraphs 63 to 72.
Constitutional Law – Topic 4712
Peace, order and good government clause -Particular legislative purposes – Public health and safety – [See
Constitutional Law – Topic 4604
].
Constitutional Law – Topic 6441
Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) – Criminal law -General – Criminal law defined – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "for a law to be classified as a criminal law, it must possess three prerequisites: a valid criminal law purpose backed by a prohibition and a penalty. … The criminal law power extends to those laws that are designed to promote public peace, safety, order, health or other legitimate public purpose. … some legitimate public purpose must underlie the prohibition." – See paragraph 74.
Constitutional Law – Topic 6450
Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) – Criminal law -General – Elements of a criminal law statute – General – [See
Constitutional Law – Topic 6441
].
Constitutional Law – Topic 6509
Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) – Criminal law -Respecting particular matters – Drug legislation – An accused submitted that Parliament had no power to criminalize the possession of marihuana for personal use under the federal criminal law power – The Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed previous decisions upholding the constitutionality of the Narcotic Control Act under the criminal law power – The purpose of the Act fit within the criminal law power, which included the protection of vulnerable groups from self-inflicted harms – The protection of chronic users and adolescents who had not yet become chronic users was a valid criminal law objective – The court stated that "the control of a 'psychoactive drug' that 'causes alteration of mental function' clearly raises issues of public health and safety, both for the user as well as for those in the broader society affected by his or her conduct. The use of marihuana is therefore a proper subject matter for the exercise of the criminal law power." – See paragraphs 73 to 80.
Criminal Law – Topic 5801.1
Sentencing – General – Proportionality – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "We agree … that imprisonment would ordinarily be an unfit sentence for a conviction for simple possession of marihuana. We disagree, however, that this observation gives rise to a finding of unconstitutionality. Rather, it gives rise, in appropriate circumstances, to an ordinary sentence appeal. … where there is no minimum mandatory sentence, the mere availability of imprisonment on a charge of marihuana possession does not violate the s. 7 principle against gross disproportionality. There are circumstances, as noted, where imprisonment would constitute a fit sentence." – See paragraphs 167 to 183.
Criminal Law – Topic 5878
Sentence – Possession, cultivation or production of a narcotic or a controlled drug or substance – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 660.1
].
Evidence – Topic 2205
Special modes of proof – Judicial notice -General principles – Constitutional cases – [See
Constitutional Law – Topic 25
].
Narcotic Control – Topic 574
Offences – Possession – General – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 660.1
and
Civil Rights – Topic 684
].
Cases Noticed:
Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Find (K.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863; 269 N.R. 149; 146 O.A.C. 236, refd to. [para. 28].
Public School Boards Association (Alta.) et al. v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 44; 251 N.R. 1; 250 A.R. 314; 213 W.A.C. 314, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Forbes (1937), 69 C.C.C. 140 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Clay (C.J.) (2003), 313 N.R. 252 (S.C.C.), affing. (2000), 135 O.A.C. 66; 49 O.R.(3d) 577 (C.A.), affing. (1997), 39 O.T.C. 81; 9 C.R.(5th) 349 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 39, 189].
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 64, 203].
R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 26 N.R. 541; 16 A.R. 91, refd to. [paras. 67, 205].
Industrial Acceptance Corp. v. R., [1953] 2 S.C.R. 273, refd to. [para. 67].
Canadian National Transportation Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General); Canadian Pacific Transport Co. and Paulley v. Canada (Attorney General), [1983] 2 S.C.R. 206; 49 N.R. 241; 49 A.R. 39, refd to. [para. 68].
R. v. Wetmore et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 284; 49 N.R. 286, refd to. [para. 68].
R. v. Sheldon S., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 254; 110 N.R. 321; 41 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 68].
Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) and Quebec (Attorney General), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914; 30 N.R. 496, refd to. [paras. 69, 216].
R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 401; 84 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 72].
Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act, [1949] S.C.R. 1, affd. [1951] A.C. 179 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 73, 202].
Margarine Reference – see Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act.
Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 201; 225 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [paras. 74, 206].
RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 74, 206].
Scowby et al. v. Glendinning et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226; 70 N.R. 241; 51 Sask.R. 208, refd to. [paras. 74, 206].
Dufresne v. R. (1912), 5 D.L.R. 501 (Que. K.B.), refd to. [para. 75].
Wakabayashi, Re, [1928] 3 D.L.R. 226 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 75].
Schneider v. British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 112; 43 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 75].
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 76, 224, 291].
R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 76, 257].
R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 76, 247].
R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 76, 241, 286].
R. v. Keegstra (J.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 381; 180 N.R. 120; 169 A.R. 50; 97 W.A.C. 50, refd to. [paras. 76, 257].
R. v. Murdock (K.P.) (2003), 173 O.A.C. 171; 11 C.R.(6th) 43 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 77, 240].
R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213; 217 N.R. 241, refd to. [paras. 77, 206].
Berryland Canning Co. v. R., [1974] 1 F.C. 91 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 77].
Standard Sausage Co. v. Lee (1933), 60 C.C.C. 265 (B.C.C.A.), addendum (1934), 61 C.C.C. 95 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].
Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [paras. 84, 190].
Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 85, 221].
R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto – see Sheena B., Re.
Godbout v. Longueuil (Ville), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; 219 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 85, 221, 279].
Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 85].
Buhlers v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 207; 194 W.A.C. 207; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 344 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].
Horsefield v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Ont.) (1999), 118 O.A.C. 291; 44 O.R.(3d) 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].
Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [paras. 95, 248].
Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 95].
R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [paras. 97, 269, 278].
R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 98].
R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714; 128 N.R. 321; 49 O.A.C. 83, refd to. [para. 118].
R. v. R.P.F. et al. (1996), 149 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 432 A.P.R. 91; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 435 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].
New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [paras. 132, 257].
R. v. Arkell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 695; 112 N.R. 175, refd to. [paras. 135, 232, 291].
R. v. Hamon (R.) (1993), 58 Q.A.C. 241; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 490 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 135].
Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 142, 270, 279].
United States of America v. Burns and Rafay, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; 265 N.R. 212; 148 B.C.A.C. 1; 243 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 142, 270].
R. v. Fleming (1992), 10 B.C.A.C. 79; 21 W.A.C. 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].
R. v. Culley (1977), 36 C.C.C.(2d) 433 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].
R. v. Dauphinee (1984), 62 N.S.R.(2d) 156; 136 A.P.R. 156 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 156].
R. v. Witter, [1997] O.J. No. 2248 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 156].
R. v. Coady (R.D.) (1994), 122 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 331; 379 A.P.R. 331; 24 W.C.B.(2d) 459 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 156].
R. v. Richards (1989), 88 N.S.R.(2d) 425; 225 A.P.R. 425 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 156].
R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90; 259 N.R. 95; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 585 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 159].
R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 159, 203].
Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385; 121 N.R. 198, refd to. [para. 159].
R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; 264 N.R. 99; 203 Sask.R. 1; 240 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 159].
R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 163, 234].
R. v. Wust (L.W.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455; 252 N.R. 332; 134 B.C.A.C. 236; 219 W.A.C. 236, refd to. [paras. 163, 234].
R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 163, 234].
R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 169].
Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 173].
Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 184].
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 185].
Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 185].
Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 185].
R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281, refd to. [para. 202].
R. v. Parker (T.) (2000), 135 O.A.C. 1; 146 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 208].
R. v. Hinchey (M.F.) and Hinchey (B.A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128; 205 N.R. 161; 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 459 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 210].
R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 217].
R. v. White (J.K.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417; 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 219].
R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 220, 291].
R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 226].
Fowler v. Padget (1798), 7 T.R. 509; 101 E.R. 1103 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 227].
R. v. Nette (D.M.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 488; 277 N.R. 301; 158 B.C.A.C. 98; 258 W.A.C. 98, refd to. [para. 227].
R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 228].
R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109, refd to. [para. 230].
R. v. Williams (H.L.) (2003), 308 N.R. 235; 231 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 686 A.P.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 233].
R. v. Pan (R.W.) (1999), 120 O.A.C. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), affd. [2001] 2 S.C.R. 344; 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 248].
R. v. C.M. (1995), 82 O.A.C. 68; 30 C.R.R.(2d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 257].
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 270].
R. v. Zingre, Wuest and Reiser, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392; 38 N.R. 272; 10 Man.R.(2d) 62, refd to. [para. 271].
R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 279].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 12].
Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [para. 12].
Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 3 [para. 12].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Alldridge, Peter, Dealing with Drug Dealing, in Simester, A.P., and Smith, A.T.H., Harm and Culpability (1996), p. 239 [para. 268].
Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 1, 1st Sess., 32nd Parl. (April 14, 1980), p. 5 [para. 21].
Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 6, 4th Sess., 24th Parl. (June 7, 1961), p. 5981 [para. 33].
Canada, House of Commons, An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Bill C-38, 2nd Sess., 37th Parl. (May 27, 2003), generally [paras. 22, 59].
Canada, Interim Report of the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Policy for the New Millennium: Working Together to Redefine Canada's Drug Strategy (December 2002), p. 144 [para. 58].
Canada, Law Commission, What is a Crime? Challenges and Alternatives (2003), p. 17 [paras. 125, 166].
Canada, Law Reform Commission, The Criminal Law in Canadian Society (1982), p. 45 [para. 122].
Canada, Preliminary Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Cannabis (Le Dain Commission Report) (1972), generally [para. 21]; pp. 265-310 [para. 195]; 268 [para. 44].
Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (Ouimet Report) (1969), pp. 11 [para. 287]; 12 [para. 291].
Canada, Report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy (September 2002), vol. 1, pp. 151 [para. 57]; 165 [paras. 3, 55]; 166 [paras. 3, 56]; 167 [para. 56]; vol. 2, pp. 256-258 [para. 31]; 264 [para. 32]; 286 [para. 34].
Canada, Senate of Canada, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the Criminal Code, Bill S-19, 1st Sess., 30th Parl. (November 26, 1974), generally [para. 21].
Côté-Harper, Gisèle, Rainville, Pierre, and Turgeon, Jean, Traité de droit pénal canadien (4th Ed. Rev. 1998), pp. 263, 264 [para. 227].
Devlin, Patrick, The Enforcement of Morals (1965), generally [para. 238].
Feinberg, Joel, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (1984), vol. 1, pp. 12 [para. 109]; 26 [para. 239]; vol. 4, p. 323 [para. 109].
Fletcher, George P., Rethinking Criminal Law (1978), pp. 461, 462 [para. 234].
Hall, Wayne, Degenhardt, Louise, and Lynskey, Michael, National Drug Strategy: The health and psychological effects of cannabis use (2001), generally [para. 50].
Hall, Wayne, Solowij, Nadia, and Lemon, Jim, National Drug Strategy: The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis use (Hall Report) (1994), paras. 43-45 [paras. 49, 197].
Hansard – see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.
Harcourt, Bernard E., et al., Symposium: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (2001), 5 Buffalo Crim. L. Rev. 1, generally [para. 239].
Harcourt, Bernard E., The Collapse of the Harm Principle (1999), 90 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 109, pp. 111, 112 [para. 238]; 113, 185 [para. 127].
Hart, H.L.A., Immorality and Treason, in The Listener (July 30, 1959,) pp. 162, 163 [para. 109].
Hart, H.L.A., Immorality and Treason, reprinted in Morality and the Law (1971), 49, p. 51 [para. 109].
Hart, H.L.A., Punishment and the Elimination of Responsibility, in Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law (1968), p. 162 [para. 231].
Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2002 Student Ed.), p. 438 [para. 68].
House of Commons Debates – see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.
Lauzon, Benoit, Les champs légitimes du droit criminel et leur application aux manipulations génétiques transmissibles aux générations futures (2002), p. 26 [para. 238].
Le Dain Commission Report – see Canada, Preliminary Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Cannabis.
MacFarlane, Bruce A., Frater, Robert J. and Proulx, Chantal, Drug Offences in Canada (3rd Ed. 1996) (December 2002 Looseleaf Update), p. 29-20 [para. 156].
Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty (1999), pp. 51, 52 [para. 237].
Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government (1946), pp. 8 [para. 106]; 9 [paras. 106, 108].
Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty: Critical Essays (1997), generally [para. 239].
Murphy, Emily, The Black Candle (1922), pp. 332, 333 [para. 43].
Ouimet Report – see Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections.
Packer, Herbert L., The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (1968), pp. 65 [para. 258]; 262 [para. 286]; 267 [paras. 239, 249].
Ramraj, Victor V., Freedom of the Person and the Principles of Criminal Fault (2002), 18 S. Afr. J. Hum. Rts. 225, generally [para. 286].
Roach, Kent, Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 2000), p. 8 [para. 227].
Ruby, Clayton C., and Martin, Dianne L., Criminal Sentencing Digest (1993) (May 2003 Looseleaf Update – Issue 39), 30§320, p. 1251 [para. 154].
Scheid, Don E., Constructing a Theory of Punishment, Desert, and the Distribution of Punishments (1997), 10 Can. J. L. & Jur. 441, p. 484 [para. 234].
Simester, A.P., and Smith, A.T.H., Harm and Culpability (1996), pp. 239 [para. 268]; 260 [para. 264].
Simester, A.P., and Sullivan, G.R., Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine (2000), p. 21 [para. 227].
Smith, John Cyril, and Hogan, Brian, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials (7th Ed. 1999), p. 27 [para. 227].
Stephen, James Fitzjames, A History of the Criminal Law of England (1883), vol. 2, pp. 78, 79 [para. 120].
Stephen, James Fitzjames, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (2nd Ed. 1967), p. 162 [para. 238].
Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (4th Ed. 2001), p. 359 [para. 227].
von Hirsch, Andrew, and Jareborg, Nils, Gauging Criminal Harm: A Living-Standard Analysis (1991), 11 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 1, pp. 2 [para. 234]; 6 [para. 230].
von Hirsch, Andrew, Extending the Harm Principle: "Remote" Harms and Fair Imputation, in Simester, A.P., and Smith, A.T.H., Harm and Culpability (1996), 259, p. 260 [para. 264].
Wolfenden, J. et al., Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (Wolfenden Report) (1963), para. 62 [para. 238].
World Health Organization, Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, Cannabis: a health perspective and research agenda (1997), pp. 30 [para. 52, Appendix A]; 31 [Appendix A].
Counsel:
David Malmo-Levine, on his own behalf;
John W. Conroy, Q.C., for the appellant, Victor Eugene Caine;
S. David Frankel, Q.C., W. Paul Riley and Kevin Wilson, for the respondent;
Milan Rupic, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Ontario;
Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., and Matthew Pollard, for the intervenor, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;
Andrew K. Lokan and Andrew C. Lewis, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Solicitors of Record:
Conroy & Co., Abbotsford, B.C., for the appellants;
Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent;
Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Ontario;
Arvay Finlay, Victoria, B.C., for the intervenor, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;
Paliare, Roland, Rosenberg, Rothstein, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
These appeals were heard on May 6, 2003, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on December 23, 2003, when the following opinions were filed:
Gonthier and Binnie, JJ. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 188;
Arbour, J., dissenting in part in Malmo-Levine and dissenting in Caine – see paragraphs 189 to 276;
LeBel, J., dissenting in part in Malmo-Levine and dissenting in Caine – see paragraphs 277 to 280;
Deschamps, J., dissenting in part in Malmo-Levine and dissenting in Caine – see paragraphs 281 to 304.