Abstract
This paper examines the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Murray-Hall v. Quebéc (Attorney General), upholding Québec’s restrictions on personal cultivation and possession of cannabis despite federal legalization. This decision is contextualized within a broader empirical analysis of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the criminal law power under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. By systematically reviewing Supreme Court cases from the Margarine Reference to Murray-Hall, the authors identify two trends: (1) increasing judicial deference to provincial legislative jurisdiction in criminal law matters since the enactment of the Charter, and (2) a continued judicial willingness to limit federal jurisdiction in cases where law does not address recognized social problems. Focusing on the substances of margarine, tobacco, and cannabis, the authors conclude that the reach of the criminal law frequently depends on whether the substance is socially and publicly considered to be a social problem. The authors argue that the Charter’s rights protections and the rise of cooperative federalism have redirected rights-based considerations away from division of powers issues, facilitating provincial autonomy in criminal-adjacent areas. After examining the issues of assisted reproduction and personal genetic information, the analysis concludes by suggesting that future constitutional disputes regarding cannabis and other evolving areas will likely shift focus to Charter compliance rather than jurisdictional boundaries, reinforcing a nuanced, cooperative approach to federalism in Canada’s criminal law landscape.
Citation Information
Kaushal, Asha and Danay, Robert.
"From Margarine to Cannabis:The Ongoing Evolution of the Criminal Law Power."
The Supreme Court Law Review, Third Series: Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
5.
(2026).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1009
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr-third-series/vol5/iss1/10
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
References
1 [2023] S.C.J. No. 10, 2023 SCC 10 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Murray-Hall"].
2 Murray-Hall, at para. 75 (S.C.C.).
3 Murray-Hall, at para. 80 (S.C.C.).
4 S.C. 2018, c.16 [hereinafter the "Cannabis Act"].
5 Murray-Hall, at paras. 87 & 104 (S.C.C.).
6 Reference re Dairy Industry Act (Canada) s. 5(a), [1949] S.C.R. 1 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Margarine Reference"].
7 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c.11 [hereinafter the "Charter"].
8 Robin MacKay, Karin Phillips & Marlisa Tiedemann, Legislative Summary of Bill C-45: An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts (Ottawa: Library of Parliament, 2018) at 4, see online: https://lop.parl.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/c45-e.pdf.
9 S.C. 1996, c. 19, s. 4 to 7.1, Sch. II.
10 See e.g., Cannabis Act, s. 8-14.
11 Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, S.B.C. 2018, c. 29; An Act to Control and Regulate Cannabis, S.A. 2017, c. 21; The Cannabis Control (Saskatchewan) Act, S.S. 2018, c. C-2.111; The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Act, C.C.S.M. c. L153; Cannabis Control Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 26, Sch. 1; Cannabis Regulation Act, C.Q.L.R. c. C-5.3; Cannabis Control Act, S.N.B. 2018, c. 2; Cannabis Control Act, S.N.S. 2018, c. 3; Cannabis Control Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. C-1.2; Cannabis Control Act, S.N.L. 2018, c. C-4.1; Cannabis Control and Regulation Act, S.Y. 2018, c. 4; Cannabis Products Act, S.N.W.T. 2018, c. 6, Sch. A; Cannabis Act, S.Nu. 2018, c. 7. For Provincial and Territorial legislation specifically regulating cannabis distribution, retail, and taxation, see Cannabis Distribution Act, S.B.C. 2018, c. 28; Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. G-1; The Safe and Responsible Retailing of Cannabis Act (Liquor and Gaming Control Act and Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation Act Amended), S.M. 2018, c. 9; The Horse Racing Regulatory Modernization Act (Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Act and Pari-Mutuel Levy Act Amended), S.M. 2021, c. 7; Cannabis Licence Act, 2018, S.O. 2018, c. 12, Sch. 2; Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 26, Sch; An Act to constitute the Société québécoise du cannabis, to enact the Cannabis Regulation Act and to amend various highway safety-related provisions, S.Q. 2018, c. 19; Cannabis Management Corporation Act, S.N.B. 2018, c. 3; An Act Respecting the Retail Sale of Cannabis, S.N.B. 2022, c. 5; Cannabis Retailers Licensing Act, S.N.B. 2022, c. 5, s. 3; Cannabis Tax Act, S.N.S. 2018, c. 4. Sch; Cannabis Management Corporation Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. C-1.3; Cannabis Taxation Agreement Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. C-1.4; Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Implementation Act, S.N.W.T. 2018, c. 6.
12 Murray-Hall, at para. 10 (S.C.C.).
13 National Assembly, Journal des débats, 41st Leg., 1st Sess., Vol. 44, No. 346 (June 6, 2018) (L. Charlebois) at 21972‑21973.
14 Murray-Hall, at para. 14 (S.C.C.).
15 Murray-Hall, at para. 17 (S.C.C.).
16 Murray-Hall, at para. 53 (S.C.C.).
17 [1993] S.C.J. No. 95, 3 S.C.R. 463 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Morgentaler (1993)"]; Murray-Hall, at paras. 54-57 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-6779(93)91093-H
18 Murray-Hall, at para. 85 (S.C.C.), citing Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1982] S.C.J. No. 70, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307, at 356 (S.C.C.).
19 [2005] S.C.J. No. 1, 2005 SCC 13 (S.C.C.).
20 Murray-Hall, at para. 90 (S.C.C.).
21 Murray-Hall, at para. 90 (S.C.C.).
22 B. Laskin, "The Supreme Court of Canada: A Final Court of and for Canadians" (1951) 29:10 Can. B. Rev. 1038, at 1039.
23 Relevantly, we did not include cases where the only question was paramountcy, e.g., R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984 (S.C.C.).
24 Morgentaler (1993) (S.C.C.).
25 The 0% ultra vires rate in the 1960s is not due to there being no cases/votes in the Dataset during that decade (see, e.g., British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Smith, [1967] S.C.R. 702 (S.C.C.) in which the Court upheld the vires of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 160, rejecting the argument that the statute was in pith and substance for the protection and benefit of children).
26 Another possible explanation, which we did not examine in any depth, is whether there is any evidence that particular provinces altered their behaviour in light of the Court's jurisprudence on the division of powers. That is, one of the potential reasons that we see fewer examples of the Supreme Court striking down provincial laws on the basis of the criminal law power might be that lawyers in provincial justice departments read the Court's jurisprudence and avoided the markers that resulted in previous provincial laws being struck down. While beyond the scope of this paper, this is a potentially fruitful area for future research.
27 See e.g., L.E. Weinrib, "The Supreme Court of Canada in the Age of Rights: Constitutional Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Under Canada's Constitution" (2001) 80:1&2 Can. B. Rev. 699, at 710.
28 For a general discussion, see P. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 4th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1997) at 782-785; D. Gibson, The Law of the Charter: General Principles (Toronto: Carswell, 1986) at 8-12.
29 See e.g., Reference re Alberta Legislation, [1938] S.C.R. 100, at 132-135 (S.C.C.), affd [1939] A.C. 117 (P.C.).
30 See e.g., A. Lajoie, "The Implied Bill of Rights, the Charter and the Role of the Judiciary" (1995) 44 U. N.B.Law J. 337, at 337
E.H. Cline et al, "Case Comments: Whither the Implied Bill of Rights? - A.G. Canada and Dupond v. The City of Montreal", (1980) 45:1 Sask. L. Rev., at 141.
31 See J.W. Penney, "Ivan Rand's Ancient Constitutionalism" (2010) 34:1&2 Manitoba Law Journal 43, at 46 https://doi.org/10.29173/mlj776
A. Lajoie, "The Implied Bill of Rights, the Charter and the Role of the Judiciary" (1995) 44 U. N.B.Law J. 337, at 338.
32 L.E. Weinrib, "The Supreme Court of Canada in the Age of Rights: Constitutional Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Under Canada's Constitution" (2001) 80:1&2 Can. B. Rev. 699, at 712.
33 [1957] S.C.R. 285 (S.C.C.).
34 Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, at 306 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Switzman"].
35 Switzman, at 306 (S.C.C.). See also Saumur v. Québec (City), [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, at 329 (S.C.C.).
36 L.E. Weinrib, "The Supreme Court of Canada in the Age of Rights: Constitutional Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Under Canada's Constitution" (2001) 80:1&2 Can. B. Rev. 699 (Emphasis added). If it is indeed the case that provinces are - by their very nature - more "extreme" in their public policy, one might ask why their legislation is no longer more likely to be found ultra vires today. One reasonable answer to that question would be that such provincial enactments are more likely to be reviewed (and overturned) through rights-based claims under the Charter as that is a more naturally suitable analytical lens through which to consider such policy "extremism". This explanation is supported by the fact that the protection of individual rights (whether expressly through the Implied Bill of Rights or implicitly) was never fully accepted by the Court as a settled feature of the division of powers analysis.
37 L.E. Weinrib, "The Supreme Court of Canada in the Age of Rights: Constitutional Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Under Canada's Constitution" (2001) 80:1&2 Can. B. Rev. 699, at 712-713. See also J. Beetz, "Les attitudes changeantes du Québec à l'endroit de la Constitution de 1867" in P.A. Crepeau & C.B. MacPherson, eds., The Future of Canadian Federalism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965); J. Beetz, "Le contrôle juridictionnel du pouvoir législatif et les droits de l'homme dans la constitution du Canada" (1958) 18 Can. B. Rev. 361 ; K.E. Swinton, The Supreme Court and Canadian Federalism: The Laskin-Dickson Years (Toronto: Carswell, 1990).
38 Importantly, the Court continues to cite cases like Switzman and Saumur in the post-Charter era.
39 The Right Honourable Brian Dickson, "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Context and Evolution" (2013) 61 S.C.L.R. (2d) 3, at para. 10 (emphasis added).
40 Charter.
41 See, e.g., Canada (Attorney General) v. Montreal (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 770, at 796 (per Beetz J.) (S.C.C.); B. Laskin, "An Inquiry into the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights" (1959) 37 Can. B. Rev. 77, at 100-103; P.C. Weiler, "The Supreme Court and the Law of Canadian Federalism" (1973) 23 U.T.L.J. 307, at 344; P.W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 3rd ed., vol. 2 (Toronto: Carswell, 1992) at 31-12 & 31-13.
42 See P.-E. Veel, "The Lenczner Slaght Supreme Court of Canada Database", Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffın LLP, see online: . This database suggests that the Court has struck down provincial or municipal legislation on the basis of inconsistency with the Charter in 36 cases, beginning with Québec (Attorney General) v. Québec Assn. of Protestant School Boards, [1984] S.C.J. No. 31, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 66 (S.C.C.) and ending with Québec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, [2018] S.C.J. No. 17, 2018 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).
43 [1983] S.C.J. No. 6, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 43 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Westendorp"].
44 [1984] S.C.J. No. 55, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 525 (S.C.C.).
45 This does not include O'Hara v. British Columbia, [1987] S.C.J. No. 69, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 591 (S.C.C.) in which Estey J. cast a single dissenting vote to find that a provincial inquiry (which is not an enactment) was an ultra vires encroachment on the federal criminal law power.
46 Westendorp, at para. 6 (S.C.C.).
47 While Peter Hogg argued that "the provisions of the Constitution distributing powers to the federal Parliament and the provincial Legislatures are logically prior to the Charter of Rights" such that a federalism challenge to a law should generally precede any Charter challenge, the Supreme Court has not endorsed or followed that approach: P.W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 5th ed., vol. 1 (Toronto: Carswell, 2006) at 15-3.
48 Westendorp, at para. 16 (S.C.C.).
49 R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] S.C.J. No. 1, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Morgentaler (1988)"].
50 R. v. Morgentaler, [1990] N.S.J. No. 252, 99 N.S.R. (2d) 293 (N. S. Prov. Ct.).
51 Morgentaler (1993) (S.C.C.).
52 Murray-Hall, at paras. 46-57 (S.C.C.).
53 Murray-Hall, at para. 53 (S.C.C.).
54 Murray-Hall, at para. 90 (S.C.C.).
55 [1989] S.C.J. No. 36, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 (S.C.C.).
56 [2015] S.C.J. No. 46, 2015 SCC 46 (S.C.C.).
57 See e.g., Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, [2007] S.C.J. No. 22, 2007 SCC 22, at paras. 36-37 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-7073(07)71414-7
58 [2010] S.C.J. No. 39, 2010 SCC 39, at para. 45 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2150-1092.2009.00001_28.x
59 OPSEU v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1987] S.C.J. No. 48, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 2, at 17 (S.C.C.). Of course the precise meaning and merits of co-operative federalism as a constitutional principle are far from settled. See, e.g., Scott A. Carriere, "The Emergence of a Normative Principle of Co-Operative Federalism and Its Application" (2021) 58:4 Alta. L. Rev. 89; Jean-Frangois Gaudreault-Desbiens & Johanne Poirier, "From Dualism to Cooperative Federalism and Back?: Evolving and Competing Conceptions of Canadian Federalism" in Peter Oliver, Patrick Macklem & Nathalie DesRosiers, eds., The Oxford Handbook of The Canadian Constitution (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2017) 391, at 411; https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780190664817.003.0018; Eric M. Adams, "Judging the Limits of Cooperative Federalism" (2016) 76 S.C.L.R. (2d) 27
https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1327; Jean-Francois Gaudreault-DesBiens, "Cooperative Federalism in Search of a Normative Justification: Considering the Principle of Federal Loyalty" (2014) 23:4 Const. F. 1.
https://doi.org/10.21991/C9X68F
60 The Court's restrained approach to the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity is also consistent with the rise of co-operative federalism as the dominant tide in the Court's jurisprudence: see e.g., References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, [2021] S.C.J. No. 11, 2021 SCC 11, at para. 124 (S.C.C.); Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, [2007] S.C.J. No. 22, 2007 SCC 22, at para. 77 (S.C.C.) ("interjurisdictional immunity is of limited application and should in general be reserved for situations already covered by precedent".)
61 Reference re Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act (Can.), [1937] J.C.J. No. 5, [1937] A.C. 326, at 354 (P.C.).
62 Québec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] S.C.J. No. 14, 2015 SCC 14, at para. 146 (S.C.C.).
63 [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373, at 421-422 (S.C.C.).
64 To gather the data used in Figure 4, we searched through CanLII's online database for the Supreme Court of Canada for the words "cooperative" in the same sentence as "federalism". The apparent explosion of mentions in the 2010s appears to be somewhat inflated by the fact that in Québec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] S.C.J. No. 14, 2015 SCC 14 (S.C.C.) the Court mentioned variants of the term in its reasons some 39 times (which is more than three times as much as any other case we found). Nevertheless, the overall upward trend is still valid as there were 15 different Supreme Court cases in which the term was mentioned in the 2010s, as compared with five in the first decade of the 2000s, two in the 1990s and one in the 1980s. The fact that the trend seems to have ebbed in the 2020s (with only five mentions) is most likely reflective of the fact that we are less than halfway through the decade at the time of publication.
65 Given that there are only four years of data for the 2020s, Figure 4 includes a projected number of cases/mentions for the 2020s to show what the trend will be if the current rate holds steady for the balance of the decade. It should also be noted that the very large number of mentions of "co-operative federalism" in the 2010s is somewhat distorted by the fact that the Court mentioned the term 39 times in Québec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] S.C.J. No. 14, 2015 SCC 14 (S.C.C.), which is more than three times higher than the number of mentions in any other case (i.e., in Reference re Impact Assessment Act, [2023] S.C.J. No. 23, 2023 SCC 23 (S.C.C.), the term was mentioned 12 times and in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., [2019] S.C.J. No. 5, 2019 SCC 5 (S.C.C.) the term was mentioned 11 times).
66 One might rightly ask why, if the "lightning rod" theory is true, the enactment of the Charter did not also result in the Court more consistently upholding the vires of federal enactments that are challenged as being outside the federal criminal law power. One answer to that question might be that - as is noted above - the Implied Bill of Rights jurisprudence, which infused the Court's federalism jurisprudence with rights protecting considerations, was solely concerned with the restraint of overreaching provincial governments. Thus, when the protection of rights was redirected away from the Court's federalism analysis and into the realm of the Charter, the impact on the federalism jurisprudence would be seen most obviously in the Court's review of provincial enactments.
67 A.J. Treviño, "Introduction" in A.J. Treviño, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Social Problems (Cambridge University Press, 2018) [hereinafter "Treviño, Handbook of Social Problems"] at xii. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108656184
68 A.J. Treviño, "Introduction" in Treviño, Handbook of Social Problems at xi.
69 Malcolm Spector & John I Kitsuse, Constructing Social Problems (New York: Routledge, 2001) at 73-96.
70 A. Jamrozik & L. Nocella, The Sociology of Social Problems: Theoretical Approaches and Methods of Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) [hereinafter "Jamrozik & Nocella"] at 1.
71 James Defronzo & Jungyun Gill, Social Problems and Social Movements (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2019) at 3.
72 Joel Best, "Constructionist Social Problems Theory" (2013) 36:1 Annals Int'l. Communication Assoc. 237-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679134
73 Jamrozik & Nocella, at 1.
74 Jamrozik & Nocella, at 2.
75 Jamrozik & Nocella, at 3.
76 C.W. Mill, The Sociological Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959); J. Schneider, "The Challenges of Conceptualizing Social Problems" in Treviño, Handbook of Social Problems at 5-6; S.T. Horsfall, Social Problems: An Advocate Group Approach (New York: Routledge, 2018) at 3.
77 J. Schneider, "The Challenges of Conceptualizing Social Problems" in Treviño, Handbook of Social Problems at 5-6.
78 J. Best, Social Problems, 3rd ed. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2017).
79 R. Manucha, Booze, Cigarettes, and Constitutional Dust-Ups (Montreal: McGill- Queen's University Press, 2022) [hereinafter "Manucha"] at 137.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780228015482
80 R.A. Ball & J.R. Lilly, "The Menace of Margarine: The Rise and Fall of a Social Problem" (1982) 29:5 Social Problems 488 [hereinafter "Ball & Lilly"], at 489.
https://doi.org/10.2307/800398
81 Manucha, at 137.
82 J. Wood, "Speech", Government of Canada, House of Commons Debates, 5th Parliament, 4th sess., Vol. 2 (May 10, 1886) at 1192, cited in Manucha, at ch. 11, note 6.
83 Observing a brief interlude from 1917-1922 in response to wartime conditions. See Manucha, at 139-140.
84 Ball & Lilly, at 489.
85 Ball & Lilly, at 492, citing T. Veblen, Theory of the Leisure Class (New York: New American Library, 1953) at 21 (describing the role of "conspicuous consumption", including the consumption of choice articles of food, in the evolution and differentiation of the leisure class).
86 Ball & Lilly, at 492.
87 S.C. 1886, ch. 42.
88 Margarine Reference, at 69 (S.C.C.).
89 Margarine Reference, at 12 (S.C.C.).
90 Ball & Lilly, at 490.
91 Margarine Reference (S.C.C.).
92 Margarine Reference, at 50 (S.C.C.).
93 Margarine Reference, at 51 (S.C.C.).
94 Margarine Reference, at 3-4 & 10 (S.C.C.).
95 The effect of the criminal purpose requirement applied to a shifting social problem left the provincial governments with wide latitude to prohibit and regulate margarine. Québec and PEI took up the prohibition on behalf of their dairy industries until 1961 and 1965, respectively. The other provinces stopped short of prohibition, only requiring margarine to be distinctly coloured from butter. See R. Dupré, "'If It's Yellow, It Must be Butter': Margarine Regulation in North America since 1886" (1999) 59:2 The Journal of Economic History 353, at 356. On the use of the word "evil", see: E. Adams, "Touch of Evil: Disagreements at the Heart of the Criminal Law Power" (2022) 104 S.C.L.R. (2d) 67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700022865
96 Ball & Lilly, at 496.
97 Canada, House of Commons Debates, 33rd Parliament, 2nd Sess., Vol. 9 (November 23, 1987) (The Honourable Jake Epp) at 11042; RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] S.C.J. No. 68, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199, at para. 30 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "RJR"].
98 RJR (S.C.C.).
99 RJR, at para. 47 (S.C.C.).
100 RJR, at para. 34 (S.C.C.).
101 RJR, at para. 34 (S.C.C.).
102 RJR, at para. 41 (S.C.C.) (this decision is notable for clearly delineating the federal and Charter issues in analysis).
103 RJR, at para. 199 (S.C.C.).
104 RJR, at para. 200 (S.C.C.).
105 R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] S.C.J. No. 79, 2003 SCC 74, at para. 61 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter Malmo-Levine].
106 Murray-Hall, at para. 73 (S.C.C.).
107 A. Owusu-Bempah & A. Luscombe, "Race, cannabis, and the Canadian war on drugs: An examination of cannabis arrest data by race in five cities" (2021) 91 Int'l. J. Drug Policy, at 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102937
108 M. Newhart & W. Dolphin, The Medicalization of Marijuana: Legitimacy, Stigma, and the Patient Experience (New York: Routledge, 2019) [hereinafter "Newhart & Dolphin"] at 22 (tracing the evolution of cannabis from "killer weed" to "dropout drug" to "just say no" to "stoner culture" to "skewed science" to "medicalization"). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429450464
109 Newhart & Dolphin, at 24.
110 M. Green, "A history of Canadian narcotics control: The formative years" (1979) 37 U. of T. Fac. L. R., cited in A. Owusu-Bempah & A. Luscombe, "Race, cannabis, and the Canadian war on drugs: An examination of cannabis arrest data by race in five cities" (2021) 91 Int'l. J. Drug Policy, at 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102937
111 P.G. Erickson, "A persistent paradox: Drug law and policy in Canada" (1999) 41 C.C.J.A. at 275, cited in A. Owusu-Bempah & A. Luscombe, "Race, cannabis, and the Canadian war on drugs: An examination of cannabis arrest data by race in five cities" (2021) 91 Int'l. J. Drug Policy, at 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102937
112 Malmo-Levine, at para. 21.
113 Malmo-Levine, at para. 21; R. v. Clay, [2003] S.C.J. No. 80, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735 (S.C.C.).
114 J. Benedet, "Hierarchies of Harm in Canadian Criminal Law: The Marijuana Trilogy and the Forcible 'Correction' of Children", (2004) 24 S.C.L.R. (2d) 216, at 219. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1054
115 Malmo-Levine, at para. 106, citing J.S. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1946), at 8-9.
116 Malmo-Levine, at para. 78.
117 [2000] O.J. No. 2787, 49 O.R. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.).
118 See Allard v. Canada, [2016] F.C.J. No. 195, 2016 FC 236, at para. 7 (F.C.).
119 See e.g., Hitzig v. Canada, [2003] O.J. No. 3873, 231 D.L.R. (4th) 104 (Ont. C.A.); Sfetkopoulos v. Canada (Attorney General), [2008] F.C.J. No. 6, 2008 FC 33 (F.C.), affd [2008] F.C.J. No. 1472, 2008 FCA 328 (F.C.A.); R. v. Beren, [2009] B.C.J. No. 618, 2009 BCSC 429 (B.C.S.C.); R. v. Smith, [2015] S.C.J. No. 34, 2015 SCC 34 (S.C.C.); Allard v. Canada, [2016] F.C.J. No. 195, 2016 FC 236 (F.C.); R. v. Howell, [2020] A.J. No. 718, 2020 ABQB 385 (Alta. Q. B.).
120 The number of patients with "Authorizations to Possess" cannabis for medical purposes under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, SOR/2001-227 rose from 455 in 2002 to 37,151 by 2013: see See Allard v. Canada, [2016] F.C.J. No. 195, 2016 FC 236, at para. 25 (F.C.).
121 While the personal possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal non-medical use was legalized, the criminal law did not entirely withdraw as the Cannabis Act includes a number of cannabis-related criminal prohibitions (e.g., possessing more than 30g in a public place by an adult, possession of cannabis that was produced illicitly, distributing or selling cannabis to a minor: Cannabis Act, s. 8-10).
122 R.A. Mikos & C.D. Kam, "Has the 'M' word been framed? Marijuana, cannabis, and public opinion" (2019) 14:10 PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224289
123 Cannabis is a genus that includes up to three species: cannabis sativa, cannabis indica, and cannabis ruderalis. See Newhart & Dolphin, at xix.
124 R. v. Hofer, [2016] B.C.J. No. 1656, 2016 BCSC 1442 at paras. 56-57 (B.C.S.C.); R. v. McGee, [2016] B.C.J. No. 2433, 2016 BCSC 2175, at para. 81 (B.C.S.C.); R. v. Tran,
[2017] O.J. No. 527, 2017 ONSC 651, at para. 54 (Ont. S.C.J.).
125 [2010] S.C.J. No. 61, 2010 SCC 61 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "AHRA Reference"].
126 [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "GNDA Reference"].
127 AHRA Reference, at para. 50 (S.C.C.).
128 M. Carter, "Federalism Analysis and the Charter" (2011) 74:1 Sask. L. Rev. 5, at 8.
129 AHRA Reference, at para. 44 (S.C.C.) (where Butler held that a "reasoned apprehension of harm" entitles Parliament to act even if on some points the jury is still out") [emphasis added].
130 Malmo-Levine, at 280; M. Carter, "Federalism Analysis and the Charter" (2011) 74:1 Sask. L. Rev. 5, at 8.
131 AHRA Reference, at para. 238 (S.C.C.).
132 GNDA Reference, at paras. 230 & 234 (S.C.C.) (In dissent, Kasirer J. was joined by Wagner, Brown, and Rowe JJ.).
133 GNDA Reference, at para. 232 (S.C.C.).
134 GNDA Reference, at para. 233 (S.C.C.).
135 Québec quickly appealed. The Canadian Coalition on Genetic Fairness, an intervenor in favour of the GNDA, then appealed to the Supreme Court.
136 Lavoie v. Manitoba, [2023] M.J. No. 263, 2023 MBKB 146 (Man. K.B.).
137 Part 3 of Cannabis Act.
138 Malmo-Levine, at para. 72 (addressing the appellants' argument that marijuana should be regulated under the POGG power).
139 See e.g., Canada v. Harris, [2020] F.C.J. No. 793, 2020 FCA 124 (F.C.A.); R. v. Thomas, [2022] O.J. No. 5902, 2022 ONCJ 623 (Ont. C.J.); R. v. Enns, [2023] N.S.J. No. 746, 2023 NSSC 381 (N.S.S.C.). The authors are aware of several such challenges which have been filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court that challenge the constitutionality of the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, S.B.C. 2018, c. 29. These challenges have not yet resulted in any reported decisions.
140 See e.g., Yashcheshen v. Saskatchewan (Ministry of Health), [2022] S.J. No. 214, 2022 SKCA 68 (Sask. C.A.).