R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., (2000) 138 B.C.A.C. 218 (CA)
| Judge | Rowles, Prowse and Braidwood, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | Friday June 02, 2000 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 218 (CA);2000 BCCA 335 |
R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 218 (CA);
226 W.A.C. 218
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.012
Regina (respondent) v. David Malmo-Levine (appellant) (CA024517)
Regina (respondent) v. Victor Eugene Caine (appellant)
(CA025287; 2000 BCCA 335)
Indexed As: R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Rowles, Prowse and Braidwood, JJ.A.
June 2, 2000.
Summary:
The accused Malmo-Levine was charged with possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 4 of the Narcotic Control Act. Malmo-Levine challenged the constitutionality of the simple possession sections of the Act. The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 961, held that these provisions of the Act did not infringe Malmo-Levine's s. 7 Charter rights. Malmo-Levine was convicted of possession of marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking, and given a conditional sentence of one year. Malmo-Levine appealed.
The accused Caine was charged with possession of marihuana. He also challenged the constitutionality of the possession provisions of the Narcotic Control Act. The British Columbia Provincial Court ruled that it was bound by the decision in Malmo-Levine that the provisions did not infringe s. 7 of the Charter. The court convicted Caine. Caine appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Prowse, J.A., dissenting, dismissed both appeals.
Civil Rights - Topic 660.1
Liberty - Limitations on - Possession of a narcotic - Marihuana - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the provisions in the Narcotic Control Act which prohibited marihuana possession did not infringe an accused's "liberty" interest in s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the right to be free from imprisonment) in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice - The court held that marihuana did pose a risk of harm to society, however small, and the degree of harm was neither insignificant nor trivial - However, the deprivation of an accused's liberty interest, caused by the presence of penal provisions in the Act, was in accordance with the "harm principle", one of the principles of fundamental justice - See paragraphs 104 to 163.
Civil Rights - Topic 684
Liberty - Principles of fundamental justice - Harm principle - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the "harm principle" was a principle of fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 104 to 134.
Civil Rights - Topic 684
Liberty - Principles of fundamental justice - Harm principle - [See Civil Rights - Topic 660.1].
Civil Rights - Topic 686
Liberty - Principles of fundamental justice - Deprivation of - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 660.1].
Civil Rights - Topic 8547
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 684].
Narcotic Control - Topic 574
Offences - Possession - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 660.1].
Cases Noticed:
Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1; 9 R.F.L.(4th) 157; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 13, 41].
R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto - see Sheena, B., Re.
R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 13, 41].
R. v. Parker (1997), 12 C.R.(5th) 251 (Ont. Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Clay (C.J.) and Prentice (J.K.) (1997), 39 O.T.C. 81; 9 C.R.(5th) 349 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. White (J.K.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417; 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 36].
R. v. Mills (B.J.) (1999), 248 N.R. 101; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 180 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 37, 179].
R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161; 36 C.R.(4th) 1; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 39].
Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 36 M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, refd to. [para. 40].
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; 24 C.R.(4th) 281, consd. [paras. 41, 179].
Godbout v. Longueuil (Ville), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; 219 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 41].
Buhlers v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 207; 194 W.A.C. 207; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 344 (C.A.), consd. [para. 41].
Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 492; 20 C.R.(4th) 57; 11 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 234, consd. [paras. 45, 179].
R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [para. 58].
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1993), 22 B.C.A.C. 266; 38 W.A.C. 266; 76 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 59].
Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 60].
R. v. Penno, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 865; 115 N.R. 249; 42 O.A.C. 271; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 344; 49 C.R.R. 50, refd to. [para. 66].
R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 353; 46 O.A.C. 13; 73 Man.R.(2d) 1; 3 W.A.C. 1; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 289; 79 C.R.(3d) 332; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 66].
R. v. Nguyen - see R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen.
Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 252 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].
Wakabayashi, Ex parte; Ex Parte Lore Kip, [1928] 3 D.L.R. 226 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 74].
R. v. Non (M.Q.), [1934] 1 W.W.R. 78; 47 B.C.R. 464 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].
R. v. Venegratsky (1928), 49 C.C.C. 298 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].
Industrial Acceptance Corp. v. R., [1953] 2 S.C.R. 273, refd to. [para. 74].
R. v. Beaver, [1957] S.C.R. 531, refd to. [para. 74].
R. v. Forbes (1937), 69 C.C.C. 140 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 79].
R. v. Ubhi (J.S.) (1992), 16 B.C.A.C. 1; 28 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].
R. v. Preston (1990), 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].
R. v. Shand (1976), 13 O.R.(2d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].
R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 26 N.R. 541; 16 A.R. 91, refd to. [para. 83].
R. v. Adelman (1968), 63 W.W.R.(N.S.) 294 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].
R. v. Hartley and MacCallum (No. 1) (1967), 63 W.W.R.(N.S.) 174 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].
R. v. Lehrmann (1967), 61 W.W.R.(N.S.) 625 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].
Wakeford v. Canada (1999), 96 O.T.C. 108; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 726 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 95].
R. v. Wheatly (1761), 2 Burr. 1125; 97 E.R. 746 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 104].
R. v. Higgins (1801), 2 East 5; 102 E.R. 269 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 104].
Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow and Co. (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 598 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].
Young v. R. (1789), 3 Term. Rep. 98; 100 W.R. 475 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 105].
Jeffreys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H.L. Cas. 814; 10 E.R. 681 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 105].
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Shimpeno (1946), 50 A.2d 39 (Penn. S.C.), refd to. [para. 106].
Mossew v. United States (1920), 266 F. 18 (2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 106].
Payne v. Tennessee (1991), 501 U.S. 808; 115 L.Ed. 2d 720; 111 S. Ct. 2597, refd to. [para. 106].
R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 11 C.R.(4th) 137, consd. [paras. 108, 125, 168].
Standard Sausage Co. v. Lee, [1933] 4 D.L.R. 501; 47 B.C.R. 411 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 118, 176].
Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of Dairy Industry Act (Margarine Case), [1949] S.C.R. 1; [1949] 1 D.L.R. 433, affd. [1950] 4 D.L.R. 689; [1951] A.C. 179 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 119, 176].
Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) and Quebec (Attorney General), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914; 30 N.R. 496, refd to. [para. 119].
RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1; 127 D.L.R.(4th) 1, consd. [paras. 120, 186].
Scowby et al. v. Glendinning et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226; 70 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 122].
R. v. Hydro-Quebec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213; 217 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 124].
R. v. Hinchey (M.F.) and Hinchey (B.A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128; 205 N.R. 161; 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 459 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 124].
R. v. Cuerrier (H.G.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 371; 229 N.R. 279; 111 B.C.A.C. 1; 181 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 126].
R. v. Sharpe (J.R.) (1999), 127 B.C.A.C. 76; 207 W.A.C. 76; 175 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 136 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 130, 168].
R. v. Greyeyes (E.R.), [1996] 9 W.W.R. 337; 144 Sask.R. 241; 124 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].
R. v. Madigan, [1970] 1 C.C.C. 354 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].
R. v. Dyer (1971), 5 C.C.C.(2d) 376 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].
R. v. Schartner (1977), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 89 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].
R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 435; [1987] 5 W.W.R. 1; 58 C.R.(3d) 193; 15 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, dist. [para. 154].
Marshall v. United States of America (1974), 414 U.S. 417; 38 L. Ed.2d 618, refd to. [para. 157].
United States of America v. Kiffer (1973), 477 F.2d 349 (2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 157].
N.O.R.M.L. v. Bell (1980), 488 F. Supp. 123 (D.D.C.), refd to. [para. 157].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 11].
Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 3, sect. 22(1) [para. 9].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Allen, C.K., Legal Duties and Other Essays in Jurisprudence (1931), pp. 233, 234 [para. 111].
Anslinger, H.J., and Cooper, C.R., Marihuana: Assassin of Youth (1937), 124 American Magazine 19, generally [para. 78].
Beccaria, Cesare, On Crimes and Punishments (1986), p. 17 [para. 197].
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (21st Ed. 1844), vol. 4, p. 6 [para. 107].
Canada, Cannabis: A Preliminary Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (LeDain Commission Report) (1972), generally [paras. 92, 182]; pp. 265 to 310 [para. 19]; 275 [para. 114].
Canada, Criminal Law in Canadian Society (1982), pp. 45, 52 [para. 116].
Canada, Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (LeDain Commission Report) (1973), generally [para. 92]; p. 933 [para. 114].
Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 1st Sess., 22nd Parliament (June 1, 1954), pp. 5312 [para. 81]; 5319 [para. 82].
Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 1st Sess., 32nd Parliament (April 14, 1980), p. 17 [para. 92].
Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 4th Sess., 24th Parliament (June 7, 1961), pp. 5981 [para. 85]; 5982 [para. 86]; 5983 [para. 87].
Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 2nd Sess., 14th Parliament (April 23, 1923), p. 2124 [para. 75].
Canada, Law Reform Commission, Criminal Code Reforms Study, Report 3: Our Criminal Law (1976), generally [para. 174]; pp. 20 [para. 115]; 28 [paras. 115, 131].
Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Towards Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (Ouimet Report) (1969), pp. 12 [para. 113]; 13 [para. 145].
Canada, Senate Committee Report, Proceedings of the Senate Committee on the Traffic in Narcotic Drugs in Canada (1955), p. xii [para. 80].
Feinberg, Joel, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (1984), vol. 1, p. 11 [para. 112].
Hall, Solowij and Lemon, Australian Government Report, National Drug Strategy: The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis Use (Hall Report) (1994), generally [para. 21 et seq].
Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 11(1), para. 1 [para. 109].
Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.
House of Commons Debates - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.
LeDain Commission Report - see Canada, Cannabis: A Preliminary Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (1972).
LeDain Commission Report - see Canada, Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (1973).
MacFarlane, B.A., Drug Offences in Canada (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 2-12 [para. 78].
Mill, John Stuart, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (1873), generally [para. 108].
Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty (1999), pp. 51 [para. 98]; 52 [paras. 98, 131].
Murphy, Emily F., The Black Candle (1922), generally [para. 76].
Ouimet Report - see Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Towards Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (1969).
Packer, H., The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (1968), p. 267 [para. 112].
Singleton, D., The Principles of Fundamental Justice, Societal Interests and Section 1 of the Charter (1995), 74 Can. Bar Rev. 446, generally [para. 61].
Smith, John Cyril, and Hogan, Brian, Criminal Law (8th Ed. 1996), p. 17 [para. 110].
Solomon, R. and Green, M., The First Century: The History of Nonmedical Opiate Use and Control Policies in Canada 1870-1970 (1982), 20 U. West. Ont. L. Rev. 307, generally [para. 72].
Stephen, James Fitzjames, A History of the Criminal Law in England (1883), vol. 2, pp. 78, 79, 81, 82 [para. 108]; vol. 3, p. 360 [para. 104].
Stevenson, G.H., Proceedings of the Senate Committee on the Traffic in Narcotic Drugs in Canada, pp. 103, 104, 105 [para. 82].
Counsel:
David Malmo-Levine, appearing in person;
J. Conroy, Q.C., for the appellant, Caine;
S. David Frankel, Q.C., and W.P. Riley, for the respondent.
These appeals were heard in Vancouver, B.C., on November 17 and 18, 1999, with written submissions on December 10 and 16, 1999, before Rowles, Prowse and Braidwood, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
The judgment of the court was delivered on June 2, 2000, including the following opinions:
Braidwood, J.A. (Rowles, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 163;
Prowse, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 164 to 188.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
PHS Community Services Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 281 B.C.A.C. 161 (CA)
... [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46 ; 244 N.R. 276 ; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25 ; 552 A.P.R. 25 , refd to. [para. 267]. R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al. (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 218; 226 W.A.C. 218 ; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 225 ; 2000 BCCA 335 , refd to. [para. Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (......
-
R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., (2003) 314 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...appealed and the appeals were heard together. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Prowse, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 218; 226 W.A.C. 218 , dismissed the appeals. The deprivation of liberty resulting from the availability of imprisonment accorded with th......
-
Hitzig v. Can., (2003) 177 O.A.C. 321 (CA)
...R. v. Clay (C.J.) (2000), 135 O.A.C. 66; 146 C.C.C.(3d) 276 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 4]. R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al. (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 218; 206 A.P.R. 218; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote R. v. Greyeyes (E.R.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 825; 214 N.R. 43; 152 ......
-
R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., (2003) 191 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
...appealed and the appeals were heard together. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Prowse, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 218; 226 W.A.C. 218 , dismissed the appeals. The deprivation of liberty resulting from the availability of imprisonment accorded with th......
-
R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., (2003) 314 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...appealed and the appeals were heard together. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Prowse, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 218; 226 W.A.C. 218 , dismissed the appeals. The deprivation of liberty resulting from the availability of imprisonment accorded with th......
-
PHS Community Services Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 281 B.C.A.C. 161 (CA)
... [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46 ; 244 N.R. 276 ; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25 ; 552 A.P.R. 25 , refd to. [para. 267]. R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al. (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 218; 226 W.A.C. 218 ; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 225 ; 2000 BCCA 335 , refd to. [para. Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (......
-
R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., (2003) 191 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
...appealed and the appeals were heard together. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Prowse, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 218; 226 W.A.C. 218 , dismissed the appeals. The deprivation of liberty resulting from the availability of imprisonment accorded with th......
-
Hitzig v. Can., (2003) 177 O.A.C. 321 (CA)
...R. v. Clay (C.J.) (2000), 135 O.A.C. 66; 146 C.C.C.(3d) 276 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 4]. R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al. (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 218; 206 A.P.R. 218; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote R. v. Greyeyes (E.R.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 825; 214 N.R. 43; 152 ......
-
Table of cases
...SCC 63 ............................................................................271 R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine, 2003 SCC 74, aff’g 2000 BCCA 335 ...... 24, 83, 106, 123, 130, 131, 138, 139, 169, 177, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185 R v Mann, 2004 SCC 52 ...............................................
-
Table of cases
............................................................................ 192, 268, 269 R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine, 2003 SCC 74, aff’g 2000 BCCA 335 .......................... 23, 75, 91, 107, 112, 113, 114, 120, 12 1, 136, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 154 R v Mann, 2004 SCC 52 .....................
-
Low Hanging Fruit . . . and Beyond: Canada's Drug Laws Meet the Charter
...by criminalization of the harmful conduct backed up, where appropriate, by the “threat” of imprisonment. 132 126 R v Malmo-Levine , 2000 BCCA 335 [ Malmo-Levine BCCA ]. 127 R v Murdock (2003), 173 OAC 171 at paras 27–29 (CA) [ Murdock ], adopting the reasoning of Braidwood JA, for the major......
-
Table of Cases
...514 R v MacPherson, 2017 ONCJ 615 ..................................................................................8 R v Malmo-Levine, 2000 BCCA 335, aff’d (sub nom R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine) [2003] 3 SCR 571 ..............................541–43, 546 R v Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59, 2004 SCC 5......