Turmel v. Canada

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Judge: Pelletier, Stratas and Gleason, JJ.A.
• Citation: 2016 FCA 9,(2016), 481 N.R. 139 (FCA)
• Date: 11 January 2016
• Subject Matter: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,CIVIL RIGHTS,COURTS

Turmel v. Can. (2016), 481 N.R. 139 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] N.R. TBEd. FE.001

John C. Turmel (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(A-342-14; 2016 FCA 9)

Indexed As: Turmel v. Canada

Federal Court of Appeal

Pelletier, Stratas and Gleason, JJ.A.

January 13, 2016.

Summary:

The appellants, self-represented litigants, challenged the constitutionality of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) and the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) in the Federal Court. The constitutionality of the MMPR was also in issue before the Federal Court in Allard et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen. On May 7, 2014, the Federal Court stayed the challenges brought by all of the self-represented litigants on the ground that the Allard challenge was "much further advanced" and had significant potential to "reduce the issues in play, clarify those remaining [,] potentially simplify the litigation for the lay litigants" and "save judicial resources". In a June 4, 2014 order, the Federal Court dismissed motions by the appellants for interim constitutional exemptions from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act pending trial of the challenges. In a July 9, 2014 amended order, the Federal Court clarified that the May 7, 2014 stay would remain in place until all appeals in the Allard challenge had been exhausted. Four appellants appealed the order of the Federal Court dated June 4, 2014 and another 22 appellants appealed the amended order dated July 9, 2014

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Statute deemed inapplicable (incl. doctrine of constitutional exemption) - [See Courts - Topic 4032.1].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2505

Determination of validity of statutes or Acts - Doctrine of constitutional exemption - [See Courts - Topic 4032.1 ].

Courts - Topic 4032.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Stay of proceedings - General - The appellants, self-represented litigants, challenged the constitutionality of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) and the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) in the Federal Court - The constitutionality of the MMPR was also in issue before the Federal Court in Allard et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen - On May 7, 2014, the Federal Court stayed the challenges brought by all of the self-represented litigants on the ground that the Allard challenge was "much further advanced" and had significant potential to "reduce the issues in play, clarify those remaining [,] potentially simplify the litigation for the lay litigants" and "save judicial resources" - In a June 4, 2014 order, the Federal Court dismissed motions by the appellants for interim constitutional exemptions from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) pending trial of the challenges - In a July 9, 2014 amended order, the Federal Court clarified that the May 7, 2014 stay would remain in place until all appeals in the Allard challenge had been exhausted - Four appellants appealed the Federal Court's June 4, 2014 order and another 22 appellants appealed the amended order dated July 9, 2014 - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals - With respect to the stay decision, the Federal Court applied settled legal principles - The appellants had not demonstrated any error of law - The decision to stay the self-represented litigants' challenges until the final disposition of the Allard challenge was supportable on the evidentiary record before the Federal Court - It was also supported by the Federal Court's earlier findings that gave rise to its May 7, 2014 order - With respect to the decision on interim relief, the appellants had not demonstrated any error in legal principle - The decision to dismiss the motions for an interim constitutional exemption from the CDSA until final determination of the Allard challenge was supportable on the evidentiary record before the Federal Court.

Cases Noticed:

Soulos v. Korkontzilas et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217; 212 N.R. 1; 100 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 10].

Sawridge Indian Band et al. v. Canada, [2001] 2 F.C. 346; 283 N.R. 107; 2001 FCA 338, refd to. [para. 10].

Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87; 453 N.R. 51; 314 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 11].

Penner v. Niagara Regional Police Services Board et al., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 125; 442 N.R. 140; 304 O.A.C. 106; 2013 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 11].

Green et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. (2015), 478 N.R. 202; 2015 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 11].

Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al., [1995] 1 F.C. 588; 176 N.R. 48; 58 C.P.R.(3d) 209 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Decor Grates Inc. v. Imperial Manufacturing Group Inc. et al. (2015), 472 N.R. 109; 2015 FCA 100, refd to. [para. 11].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Parker (T.) (2000), 135 O.A.C. 1; 49 O.R.(3d) 481; 188 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Ferguson (M.E.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96; 371 N.R. 231; 425 A.R. 79; 418 W.A.C. 79; 2008 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 21].

Counsel:

John C. Turmel appeared on his own behalf and on behalf of the appellants in the other consolidated appeals;

Jon Bricker and Andrew Wheeler, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on January 11, 2016, at Toronto, Ontario, before Pelletier, Stratas and Gleason, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Stratas, J.A., on January 13, 2016.