Return to Lecture Series Index

[106] In Morgentaler, Beetz J. summarized the right to security of the person as a right to access to medical treatment for a condition representing a danger to life or health without fear of criminal sanction.  As he said at p. 90: Generally speaking, the constitutional right to security of the person must include some protection from state interference when a person's life or health is in danger. If a rule of criminal law precludes a person from obtaining appropriate medical treatment when his or her life or health is in danger, then the state has intervened and this intervention constitutes a violation of that man's or that woman's security of the person. “Security of the person” must include a right of access to medical treatment for a condition representing a danger to life or health without fear of criminal sanction. If an Act of Parliament forces a person whose life or health is in danger to choose between, on the one hand, the commission of a crime to obtain effective and timely medical treatment and, on the other hand, inadequate treatment or no treatment at all, the right to security of the person has been violated.

[107] That holding applies in this case.  The state has not violated Parker’s rights simply because epilepsy in and of itself represents a danger to his life or health.  However, to prevent his accessing a treatment by threat of criminal sanction constitutes a deprivation of his security of the person.  Based on the evidence, the marihuana laws force Parker to choose between commission of a crime to obtain effective medical treatment and inadequate treatment.

[135] We were not directed to any common law history of entitlement to drug therapy.  The closest analogue is the doctrine of informed consent, which makes it a civil wrong to impose treatment without the consent of the patient.  The patient may also demand that treatment, once commenced, be withdrawn or discontinued.  See Rodriguez at pp. 598-99.  While there is obviously a difference between a right to refuse treatment and a right to demand treatment, they can also be seen as two points on a continuum rooted in the common-law right to self- determination with respect to medical care.  This includes the right to choose to select among alternative forms of treatment.

[210] Accordingly, I would vary the remedy granted by the trial judge and declare the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be invalid.  I would suspend the declaration of invalidity for a period of twelve months from the release of these reasons. R. vs Parker, July 31, 2000, Court of Appeal of Ontario, Justices Catzman, Charron & Rosenberg

Cannasat Therapeutics is researching the therapeutic benefits of cannabis and developing new cannabinoid pharmaceutical products.  Cannasat is pursuing two complementary business strategies.  The first consists of development of novel cannabinoid-based pharmaceutical products through application of drug delivery technologies to be introduced to the market through the traditional regulatory drug approval process.  The second is to promote medicinal cannabis research and education with Cannasat's business partner, Prairie Plant Systems Inc., the only government licensed grower and distributor of medicinal cannabis in Canada. cannasat.com

The Toronto Compassion Centre exists because people are suffering unnecessarily. The TCC and Centres like it are necessary to fill the gap between our society's widespread acceptance of the benefits of cannabis as medicine and our government's reluctance to provide that which thousands of Canadians need: a reasonable source. Compassion Centres strive to provide an essential but not-yet-legal service in a manner that is as tolerable as possible. Health Canada's MMAR (Marihuana Medical Access Regulations) provide a limited (and unfairly difficult to acquire) exemption from the law for people who need to possess and grow cannabis for medicinal purposes. These Regulations protect exemptees from prosecution for possessing cannabis, but do not allow for any reasonable type of access except growing your own, which is not a viable option for most. The option of purchasing medical marijuana from the 'government mine' is also not generally a very viable one due to the conspicuously disappointing quality, safety and variety of cannabis available in this manner. There are many concerns with the Health Canada marijuana, not the least of which being the process off gamma irradiation that it is oddly subjected to. torontocompassioncenter.org

He (Micheal Patriquen) went on to spend years researching this phenomenon and contemplating how he may present this wonder of nature to our modern society who are now so dependent on synthetics and pharmaceuticals. With a change to the Canadian legal environment respecting cannabis in 1998, he saw the opportunity and began development of the first low-THC product, Cannabis Sativa Seed Pressings. Michael brought that initial product through development, pre-market, market acceptance and now- client gratitude. The company, MMP Health Inc., now proudly presents a legal line of Marijuana based products. med-marijuana.com

R. vs Brian Carlisle, Jan 17, 2003, Madam Justice Loo, B.C. Supreme Court
R. vs Noreen Eves, March 23, 2006, B.C. Provincial Court, Judge Doherty
Hitzig et al., Oct 7, 2003, Court of Appeal of Ontario, Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons JJ.A.
R. vs Grant Krieger, Sept 25, 2006, Provincial Court of Alberta, Judge Pepler
R. vs Grant Krieger, Dec 11, 2000, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Madam Justice Acton
R. vs Philippe Lucas, July 5, 2002, B.C. Provincial Court, Judge Higgenbotham
R. vs Terry Parker, July 31, 2000, Court of Appeal of Ontario, Justices Catzman, Charron & Rosenberg
R. vs William Small, June 27, 2000, Supreme Court of B.C., Justice Wong
R. vs Smith & Budda, Sept 7, 2004, B.C. Provincial Court, Madam Justice Chaperon
R. vs Smith, Jan 7, 2005, B.C. Provincial Court, Madam Justice Harvey
R. vs St. Maurice & Neron, Dec 19, 2002, Court of Quebec, Justice Cadieux
R. vs James Wakeford, May 6, 1999, Superior Court of Ontario, Judge LaForme
Young vs Saanich Police & Capital Region Housing Corporation, B.C. Supreme Court, Justice Macauley

International Hempology 101 Society

Cannabis Buyers' Clubs of Canada