From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Here's the Written Response of the Crown presented in Bob   
   Woolsey's trial in Abbotsford BC last week. My comments are   
   the draft of the Reply by Dec 12.   
      
   CR: Our File No. : 3325527   
   Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2S9   
   November 22, 2017   
   Court File No.: 84714 Abbotsford Registry   
        IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   
   REGINA   
   v.   
   Robert James WOOLSEY   
      
   CROWN MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT - SECTION 601 MOTION TO QUASH   
      
   OVERVIEW   
      
   1. The Applicant, Robert Woolsey, is charged with five counts   
   of trafficking cannabis (marihuana). The allegation is that   
   four undercover police officers, on five separate occasions   
   between September 24, 2015 and November 21, 2015, attended at   
   the B.C. Pain Society in Deroche, British Columbia and bought   
   marihuana or other Schedule II substances from Mr. Woolsey.   
      
   2. The Applicant has applied to the Court under s. 601 of the   
   Criminal Code to quash the charges as disclosing no offence   
   known to law, on the basis that the offence of trafficking   
   cannabis (marihuana) has been unconstitutional since July 31,   
   2001 or, in the alternative, since April 1, 2014.   
      
   3. July 31, 2001 is the date that the Parker order was to have   
   taken effect. In R. v. Parker, on July 31, 2000, the Ontario   
   Court of Appeal declared the marijuana prohibition in s.4 of   
   the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be invalid. The   
   Court suspended the declaration of invalidity for one year. It   
   never took effect because the Marihuana (Medical Access)   
   Regulations came into force on July 30, 2001.   
      
   JCT: Parker retroactively took effect on Oct 7 2003 when the   
   Hitzig decision ruled the MMAR was deficient.   
      
   CR: The Applicant disputes that the Regulations had the effect   
   of displacing the declaration. He says: Parliament Only   
   Legislates, Courts Only Abrogate (POLCOA). This acronym,   
   however, does not reflect the law in Canada.   
      
   JCT: This does reflect the ethos of law in Canada. Only   
   Parliament Legislates. The Crown fails to suggest who else may   
   legislate new penal sanctions. Courts Only Abrogate: The Crown   
   fails to suggest any power of the courts to strike up new   
   laws. POLCOA was an attempt to codify Canada's legal ethos.   
      
   CR: 4. April 1, 2014 is the date that medical use of cannabis   
   in Canada became solely governed by the Marihuana for Medical   
   Purposes Regulations. These were the regulations that were in   
   force at the time of the Applicant's alleged offences. They   
   have since been found unconstitutional in Allard v. Canada.   
   The Applicant argues that as the medical marihuana regulatory   
   scheme was constitutionally deficient at the time his charges   
   arose, the CDSA provision he is alleged to have violated is of   
   no force and effect. He says: Bad Exemption, No Offence   
   (BENO). There is some support for this position in R. v. J.P.   
   but the Ontario Court of Appeal has taken pains in subsequent   
   cases to distinguish J.P. based on the unique circumstances of   
   the time.   
      
   JCT: It is a distortion to call the 1st time "unique." There   
   is no reason that an original finding that the prohibitions   
   are invalid absent exemption can't be found the next time the   
   exemption is absent.   
      
   CR: More importantly, the trial judge in Allard explicitly   
   declined, twice, to declare that the underlying legislation   
   was unconstitutional.   
      
   JCT: The Allard judge may have mused about it and given it a   
   thought but it had not been moved and there had been no   
   foundation. And he's just another judge who did not follow   
   Parker/Krieger when he should have.   
      
   WHERE'S TALIANO?   
      
   CR: THE LAW   
      
   Legislative Framework and Development of Related Regulations   
      
   5. The state of the law and regulations have evolved   
   significantly through both Parliamentary action and judicial   
   intervention since the introduction of the Controlled Drugs   
   and Substances Act, SC 1996, Chap 19. Understanding how these   
   changes were made, their timing and context is critically   
   important when Courts are asked to intervene on questions of   
   constitutionality.   
      
   The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)   
      
   6. The CDSA came into effect in 1997, replacing the former   
   Narcotic Control Act. The substances controlled under the CDSA   
   are divided into "Schedules" which partly reflect the chemical   
   nature and origins of the substances (similar substances are   
   generally categorized together), and partly reflect the risk   
   that Parliament has ascribed to the substances by the   
   imposition of different penalties for the possession,   
   trafficking and production of each category of substances.   
      
   7. Cannabis (marihuana) is a Schedule II substance under the   
   CDSA. It is an offence to possess, traffic or produce   
   marihuana or its derivatives without a legal exemption. Until   
   R. v. Parker, the only legal exemption was through s. 56 of   
   the CDSA. Beginning in 2001, Parliament has put into place a   
   series of regulatory schemes allowing medical marihuana   
   exemptions to the prohibitions in the CDSA.   
      
   JCT: All of which but the latest have been found   
   constitutionally deficient in that series of declarations.   
      
   CR: R v Parker(2000), 146 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (Ont. C.A.)   
      
   8. In Parker, there was a finding of fact that Mr. Parker's   
   frequent and potentially life threatening seizures were best   
   managed by using marihuana. The Ontario Court of Appeal   
   determined that s. 4(1) of the CDSA unjustifiably infringed   
   Mr. Parker's s. 7 Charter rights because it required him to   
   choose between, on the one hand, committing a crime to obtain   
   effective medical treatment and, on the other, continuing with   
   an ineffective treatment.   
      
   9. Upon declaring this section constitutionally invalid on   
   July 31, 2000, the Court suspended the declaration for one   
   year to give the government time to cure the constitutional   
   defect. The precise nature of the appropriate measures to   
   address the constitutional infirmity was left to be dealt with   
   in the legislative sphere: paras. 200..:.20?.   
      
   1O. In Krieger, Acton J. of the Alberta Queen's Bench followed   
   Parker but at the same time went even further than Parker. On   
   December 11, 2000 she declared s.7 of the CDSA of no force and   
   effect to the extent that it related to cannabis (marihuana):   
   2000 ABQB 1012. She also delayed her declaration for one year.   
   The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld her declaration: 2003 ABCA   
   85 at paras. 4-7.   
      
   The Initial Regulations: Marihuana Medical Access Regulations   
   SOR/2001-227 ("MMAR")   
      
   11. The Government of Canada did not appeal Parker or Krieger   
   to the Supreme Court of Canada.   
      
   JCT: In Applicant's Factum, Paragraph 3, it notes:   
       Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada denied.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)