From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: David Butler's Quash motion is being considered in   
   Shelburne Nova Scotia. The Crown provided a response, here's   
   a draft of the Reply.   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA   
   COUNTY OF SHELBURNE   
      
                 PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA   
      
   BETWEEN:   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Respondent   
                             - and -   
                        DAVID LEWIS BUTLER   
                                                     Applicant   
      
                     BRIEF OF THE RESPONDENT   
                    (Defence Motion to Quash)   
      
   CR: 1. The Applicant David Butler has been charged with the   
   following offence: 7(1) CDSA - Production of Cannabis   
   Marihuana on May 30 2014 at or near Jordan Falls.   
      
   2. The applicant applies to this court, pre-plea, pursuant   
   to S.601(1) of the Criminal Code, to quash the Information   
   on the basis that the above charge is of no force and   
   effect, as per page 2 of his application dated Mar 16 2016.   
      
   OVERVIEW   
      
   3. The applicant argues that the prohibitions on marijuana   
   under the CDSA are of no force and effect and, accordingly,   
   the Information charging him under CDSA S.7(1) does not   
   allege offences known to law and should therefore be struck   
   from CDSA Schedule II; that all (cannabis marihuana)   
   convictions registered since 2001 (referred to by the   
   Applicant as Smith Bad Exemption created No Offence) be   
   expunged and finally that the applicant's seized cannabis   
   marijuana be returned to him.   
      
   4. The CDSA sets out general prohibitions subject to   
   targeted exemptions. CDSA S.7 has never been declared   
   invalid and remains an offence in Canada.   
      
   JCT: CDSA S.7(1) prohibition on marijuana declared invalid   
   in R. v. Krieger (Mar 18 2003)   
      
   CR: Some courts have found specific clauses of the Medical   
   Marijuana Access Regulations unconstitutional, and very   
   recently, the Federal Court in Allard[2016] F.C.J. No. 195   
   suspended for six months the declaration that the Marihuana   
   for Medical Purposes Regulations were unconstitutional.   
   However, this decision does not serve to undermine the   
   prohibitions contained in the CDSA   
      
   JCT: like the Hitzig decision did...   
      
   CR: as they relate to non-medical marihuana cases.   
      
   JCT: As J.P. was not medical nor were most of the 4,000   
   charges dropped in Dec 2003.   
      
   CR: 5. The information in question is not misleading; it   
   contains sufficient detail such that the applicant is   
   reasonably informed of the unlawful act alleged against him.   
   The offence in the Information is known to law and the   
   Information should not be quashed.   
      
   6. The applicant's request for declaratory relief, namely,   
   that the word marihuana be struck from the CDSA legislation   
      
   JCT: More specifically, Schedule II of the CDSA   
      
   CR: and that cannabis marihuana convictions be expunged   
   exceeds Your Honour's jurisdiction sitting as a preliminary   
   inquiry justice.   
      
   JCT: True, no power here but it's raised for when we get to   
   appeal with a judge with such declaratory power.   
      
   CR: The only apparent means by which the declaratory order   
   sought could be founded are findings that the legislation in   
   question is unconstitutional.   
      
   JCT: Already has been, now remedy.   
      
   CR: However a provincial court judge presiding at a   
   preliminary inquiry is not a court of competent   
   jurisdiction. With respect to the request to expunge prior   
   CDSA convictions, it is also noted that this applicant has   
   established no standing to make such an application.   
      
   JCT: Standing is provided by being charged.   
      
   CR: 7. With respect to the applicant's request for the   
   return of cannabis marihuana seized in this matter, it is   
   submitted that the applicant has led no evidence to support   
   such finding as per the requirements under s.24(2) of the   
   CDSA. It is also noted that this substance or a portion of   
   it will be required for preliminary inquiry and/or trial.   
      
   JCT: The Motion for Return of Controlled Substance is only   
   to be heard the proceedings have ended upon a favorable   
   outcome. If convicted, it must necessarily fail. If and when   
   the Information is quashed is when the motion shall be   
   raised.   
      
   CR: PART II   
      
   ISSUE   
      
   8. Is the charge faced by the applicant under the CDSA of no   
   force and effect?   
      
   JCT: Since 2001.   
      
   CR: PART III   
      
   ARGUMENT   
      
   9. Marihuana is a controlled substance. The law prohibits   
   anyone from possessing, trafficking and producing controlled   
   substances, including cannabis marihuana and its   
   derivatives, unless they have a legal exemption from this   
   prohibition.   
      
   10. In 2001, Parliament put in place a regulatory regime   
   carving out a medical marihuana exemption to the   
   prohibitions in the CDSA.   
      
   JCT: Because of the Parker decision that ruled you need a   
   working medical exemption to the prohibitions or there are   
   no prohibitions.   
      
   CR: The various regulatory regimes that have been in place   
   ever since (the MMAR, and its amendments, and their   
   successors, the MMPRs], have been consistently challenged   
   and the subject of judicial scrutiny.   
      
   JCT: Why? To see if they comply with the Parker Order. And   
   they did not in Hitzig and they do not in Smith-Allard.   
      
   CR: The applicant's current application relies heavily on   
   the rationale in the cases of Hitzig v. HMQ and R. v. J.P.   
   released the same day from the Ontario Court of Appeal.   
   Hitzig found the MMAR then in place was not a   
   constitutionally acceptable exemption, and, as a result,   
   S.4(1) CDSA (involving marihuana) was unenforceable during   
   the period of time the exemption regime was   
   unconstitutional. The applicants advance the same rationale   
   here, saying that R. v. Smith and Hitzig are "on all fours!"   
      
   JCT: Well put. Forgot dropping 4,000 charges.   
      
   CR: 11. The respondent Crown argues that the Hitzig case is   
   not similar to Smith, Smith found one small aspect of the   
   MMARs to be problematic and provided for a focused remedy.   
      
   JCT: Hitzig found 4 small aspects, no brakes, no wheels, no   
   tires, no steering wheel, but the rest worked fine. Smith   
   just one one single aspect, no engine! But the rest works.   
      
   CR: Smith did not comment on the rest of the the MMAR   
   provisions, thus leaving the MMARs largely intact (although   
   repealed now). Further, Smith very explicitly says that s.4   
   and 5 of the CDSA are enforceable - and indeed would have   
   been enforceable against Owen Smith had the Crown chosen to   
   proceed in the matter, (even though his alleged offence   
   occurred during the time when the impugned MMAR provision   
   existed (he was charged during a time when the MMAR was   
   limited to dried marijuana).   
      
   JCT: Neither did Hitzig rule on the CDSA. J.P. had to ask   
   for No Offence when Absent Exemption by Hitzig. Allan Young   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)