From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Heidi ran a medpot dispensary that was raided. She   
   filed a motion to Quash and the Crown has responded. This   
   could be one of our last shots at a judge obeying the   
   Interpretation Act instead of obeying the the Hitzig   
   decision.   
      
             MEMORANDUM OF THE CROWN ON QUASH MOTION   
      
   TABLE OF CONTENTS   
   PART I STATEMENT OF FACTS/OVERVIEW ..................... 1   
   PART II ISSUE............................................2   
   PART HI ARGUMENT ........................................3   
   PART IV ORDER OF RELIEF SOUGHT..........................13   
   Appendix A - List of Authorities........................14   
   Appendix B - Criminal Code, s.601.......................15   
      
   PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   1. The applicant. Heidi Chartrand. has been charged with the   
   following offences:   
       - That she on or about the 21st day of September. 2018   
       at or near Greenwood, Kings County. Nova Scotia. did   
       unlawfully have in her possession, located in a retail   
       store named Higher Living Wellness Centre, for the   
       purpose of trafficking, Marihuana, a substance included   
       in Schedule II of the Controlled Drugs and Substances   
       Act, S.C.1996.c. 19, and did thereby commit an offence   
       contrary to s. 5(2) of the said Act.   
       AND FURTHER that she at the same time and place   
       aforesaid, did unlawfully have in her possession,   
       located in a retail store named Higher Living Wellness   
       Centre, for the purpose of trafficking, Marihuana Resin,   
       a substance included in Schedule II of the Controlled   
       Drugs and Substances Act. S.C. 1996. c. 19. and did   
       thereby commit an offence contrary to s. 5(2) of the   
       said Act.   
      
   2. The applicant applies to this court, pre-plea. pursuant   
   to s. 601(1) of the Criminal] Code, to quash the Information   
   containing the above charges arguing the offences are   
   unknown to law.   
      
   OVERVIEW   
      
   3. The applicant says that the Information charging her with   
   s. 5(2) of the CDSA does not allege offences known to law   
   and should be quashed. The CDSA sets out general   
   prohibitions subject to targeted exemptions. Section 5 of   
   the CDSA has never been declared invalid and remains an   
   offence in Canada. The Information in question is not   
   misleading: it contains sufficient detail such that the   
   applicant is reasonably informed of the unlawful acts   
   alleged against her. The offences in the Information are   
   known to law and the Information should not be quashed.   
      
   JCT: The whole case is that Possession and Production have   
   been declared invalid and never re-enacted by Parliament and   
   that therefore Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking   
   shouldn't be illegal for a substance that is not prohibited   
   under the CDSA.   
      
   PART II - ISSUE   
      
   4. Are the charges faced by the applicant under the CDSA of   
   no force and effect, or "unknown to law"?   
      
   PART III - ARGUMENT   
      
   5. Cannabis 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.   
      
   6. In 2001. Parliament put in place a regulatory regime   
   carving out a medical marihuana exemption to the   
   prohibitions in the CDSA.   
      
   JCT: Because the Parker decision said you cannot have a   
   valid prohibition without having a valid exemption for the   
   medically needy.   
      
   CR: The various regulatory regimes that have been in place   
   ever since, the MMAR and its amendments, along with the MMPR   
   and the current ACMPR, have been consistently challenged and   
   the subject of judicial scrutiny. The current application   
   relies heavily on the rationale in the cases of Hitzig v   
   Canada (Attorney General) (2003). 177 CCC (3d) 449 and in R   
   v J.P., 2003 CanLlI 17492 (ON CA), released the same day   
   from the Ontario Court of Appeal.   
      
   JCT: Both relying on R. v. Parker [2000]   
      
   CR: Hitzig found the scheme in 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.   
      
   JCT: That's what Parker said, that without an acceptable   
   medical exemption, "s.4(1) CDSA (involving marihuana) was   
   unenforceable during the period of time the exemption regime   
   was unconstitutional."   
      
   The applicant advances the same rationale here, asking the   
   court to construe R v Smith 2015 SCO 34 as extending the   
   period of retrospective invalidity.   
      
   JCT: If the original period of retrospective invalidity   
   ended without Parliament re-enacting the law.   
      
   CR: 7. The respondent Crown argues that Hitzig is not   
   similar to Smith. Smith found one small aspect of the MMAR   
   to be problematic and provided for a focused remedy. Smith   
   did not comment on the rest of the MMAR provisions, thus   
   leaving the MMAR largely intact (although repealed, now).   
      
   JCT: Hitzig also did not find the whole MMAR deficient, only   
   a few small aspects of the MMAR problematic but it still   
   resulted in an invalid medical exemption for an invalid   
   prohibition and the dropping of 4,000 charges.   
      
   CR: Further. Smith very explicitly says that 5(2) CDSA is   
   enforceable - and indeed would have been enforceable against   
   Owen Smith (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   
   marihuana).   
      
   JCT: That's why we're asking to strike S.5(2) now.   
      
   CR: 8. In Hitzig, the Ontario Court or Appeal held that the   
   first iteration of the MMAR was constitutionally infirm for   
   two reasons. First, the Court found the regulations to be   
   deficient in failing to provide any means for those   
   authorized to possess marihuana for medical purposes to   
   lawfully produce or acquire marihuana to meet their medical   
   needs. Secondly, the Court found the requirement for the   
   approval of two specialists in relation to Category III   
   Applicants to be arbitrary. The Court of Appeal went on to   
   strike down the related provisions of the 2001 MMAR. At the   
   same time. the Hitzig court (at paras. 136-145) held that   
   many of the other regulatory measures and limitations on   
   access to marihuana for medical purposes were not   
   inconsistent with the principles of fundamental justice and   
   did not violate s. 7 of the Charter.   
      
   JCT: Everything else worked even though the engine did not.   
      
   CR: 9. In Hitzig, the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to   
   strike down the s. 4 CDSA prohibition   
      
   JCT: The Court was not asked to strike down the prohibition,   
   only to fix the exemption which Alan  Young argued would   
   strike up the previously-dead prohibition.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)