Bennett v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., 2011 FC 1310

• Judge: Shore, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 08, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2011 FC 1310;(2011), 400 F.T.R. 48 (FC)

Bennett v. Can. (A.G.) (2011), 400 F.T.R. 48 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.046

Christopher Bennett (applicant) v. The Attorney General for Canada and The Minister of Health for Canada (respondents)

(T-1073-09; 2011 FC 1310)

Indexed As: Bennett v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Federal Court

Shore, J.

November 15, 2011.

Summary:

Bennett, a member of the "Church of the Universe," believed that cannabis was the "tree of life". The Minister of Health for Canada refused to issue Bennett a statutory exemption that would have permitted him to produce and possess enough marijuana to smoke and/or imbibe seven grams of the drug every day without violating the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). Bennett applied for judicial review. He argued that both the statutory prohibitions on the possession and production of marijuana in ss. 4 and 7 of the CDSA and the denial of his Ministerial exemption request violated his rights under ss. 2, 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The Federal Court, on a deferential standard of reasonableness, dismissed the application. Bennett had not established a breach of the Charter. In any regard, the breach, if one existed, was justified as a reasonable limit pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 302

Freedom of conscience and religion - What constitutes a religion - [See Food and Drug Control - Topic 1043 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 660

Liberty - Limitations on - Cultivation of opium poppy or marijuana (incl. medicinal use) - [See Food and Drug Control - Topic 1043 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7171

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable and justifiable contravention - [See Food and Drug Control - Topic 1043 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8344

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) - [See Food and Drug Control - Topic 1043 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Food and Drug Control - Topic 1043 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8671

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights - Enumerated categories - [See Food and Drug Control - Topic 1043 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8672

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights - Analogous categories - [See Food and Drug Control - Topic 1043 ].

Food and Drug Control - Topic 1043

Drugs - Controlled drugs - General - Authorization to possess - The applicant, a member of the "Church of the Universe," believed that cannabis was the "tree of life" - The Minister of Health for Canada refused to issue a statutory exemption that would have permitted the applicant to produce and possess enough marijuana to smoke seven grams of the drug every day (about 35 "joints") without violating the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) - On judicial review, the applicant argued that both the statutory prohibitions on the possession and production of marijuana in ss. 4 and 7 of the CDSA and the denial of his Ministerial exemption request violated his rights under ss. 2, 7 and 15 of the Charter - The Federal Court dismissed the application - Both the applicant's practice of smoking seven grams of marijuana per day and the underlying belief that cannabis was the "tree of life" were secular in nature - A cannabis-centred lifestyle choice was not protected by the right to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter (paragraphs 44 to 90) - Although the threat of imprisonment engaged his right to liberty under s. 7 of the Charter, the applicant failed to establish a corresponding inconsistency with the principles of fundamental justice (paragraphs 91 to 118) - The applicant also relied on non-corresponding analogies between his desire to smoke marijuana and the needs of seriously ill persons and intravenous drug addicts - The applicant had not established any breach of his right to equality under s. 15 of the Charter as he had not identified a distinction on an enumerated or analogous ground by which to expose any disadvantage that promoted prejudice or stereotyping (paragraphs 119 to 123) - Any prima facie breach of his Charter rights was demonstrably justifiable under s.1 of the Charter - The objectives pursued by the impugned prohibitions would be undermined if the applicant were permitted unfettered access to marijuana - When measured against the minimal infringement of the applicant's ability to hold and manifest his beliefs, any Charter deprivation caused by the CDSA was both proportional and reasonably justifiable (paragraphs 124 to 147).

Narcotic Control - Topic 6

General - Legislation - Exemptions - [See Food and Drug Control - Topic 1043 ].

Cases Noticed:

Lake v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 761; 373 N.R. 339; 236 O.A.C. 371; 2008 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 6].

Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551; 323 N.R. 59; 2004 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [para. 6].

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256; 345 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Parker (T.) (2000), 135 O.A.C. 1; 49 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), dist. [para. 18].

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 18, 96].

Hitzig et al. v. Canada (2003), 177 O.A.C. 321; 231 D.L.R.(4th) 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 39].

Dupuis v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 266 F.T.R. 41; 2004 FC 919, refd to. [para. 41].

Paquette v. Canada (Procureur général), [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 505; 2002 FCT 759, refd to. [para. 41].

Reference Re Marine Transportation Security Regulations (2009), 395 N.R. 1; 2009 FCA 234, refd to. [para. 43].

United States of America v. Meyers (1995), 906 F. Supp. 1494 (Wyo. Dist. Ct.), affd. (1996), 95 F.3d 1475 (10th Cir.), appld. [paras. 53,86].

Church of the New Faith v. Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax, [1983] HCA 40, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Welsh (J.) et al., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 683 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 58].

R. v. Kharaghani (S.) et al., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 836; 2011 ONSC 836, consd. [para. 61].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Thompson (1986), 30 C.C.C.(3d) 125 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Hunter (I.F.), [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 782 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Locke (J.) (2004), 375 A.R. 49 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Fehr (G.D.S.) (2004), 368 A.R. 122 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 75].

Trozzo Holdings Ltd. v. Niagara Holdings Ltd., [2002] B.C.A.C. Uned. 159; 2002 BCCA 655, refd to. [para. 75].

Webb v. Waterloo Regional Police Services Board et al. (2002), 161 O.A.C. 86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Church of the Chosen People (North American Panarchate) v. United States of America (1982), 548 F. Supp. 1247 (Minn. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Kerr (1986), 75 N.S.R.(2d) 305; 186 A.P.R. 305 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1987), 78 N.R. 239; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 360; 193 A.P.R. 360 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

Baldasaro v. Canada - see Tucker et al. v. Canada.

Tucker et al. v. Canada (2003), 239 F.T.R. 81; 2003 FC 1008, refd to. [para. 89].

Tucker et al. v. Canada (2004), 264 F.T.R. 299; 2004 FC 1729, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Smith, [2005] B.C.J. No. 176 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 89].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 91].

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 91].

Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Central v. K.L.W. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519; 260 N.R. 203; 150 Man.R.(2d) 161; 230 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Clay (C.J.), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735; 313 N.R. 252; 181 O.A.C. 350; 2003 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 97].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 97].

PHS Community Services Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 421 N.R. 1; 310 B.C.A.C. 1; 526 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 44, dist. [paras. 97, 114].

R. v. Normore, [2005] A.J. No. 543 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Mernagh (M.), [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 2121; 2011 ONSC 2121, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Kapp (J.M.) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483; 376 N.R. 1; 256 B.C.A.C. 75; 431 W.A.C. 75; 2008 SCC 41, appld. [para. 119].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, appld. [para. 124].

Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony et al. v. Alberta, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; 390 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 1; 462 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 125].

Montreal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141; 340 N.R. 305; 2005 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 130].

Trinity Western University et al. v. College of Teachers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772; 269 N.R. 1; 151 B.C.A.C. 161; 249 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 132].

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 132].

R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto - see Sheena, B., Re.

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Zaharia (1987), 18 O.A.C. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133].

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), 494 U.S. 872, refd to. [para. 136].

Prince v. President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope & others (2002), 2002(3) B. Const. L.R. 231 (S. Afr. Const. Ct.), refd to. [para. 136].

Arsenault et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2009), 395 N.R. 223; 2009 FCA 300, refd to. [para. 150].

Statutes Noticed:

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, sect. 56 [para. 25].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brauti, Peter M., and Puddington, Brian G., Prosecuting and Defending Drug Offences (2003), p. 373 [para. 15].

Van der Schyff, G., The Legal Definition of Religion and its Application (2002), 119 S. African L.J. 288, generally [para. 53].

Counsel:

Kirk I. Tousaw, for the applicant;

Robert Danay and Sally Rudolph, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Kirk I. Tousaw, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents.

This application was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 8, 2011, before Shore, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment and judgment, dated November 15, 2011.