Not exact matches
However, they confine
medical access to «dried
marihuana», so that those who are legally authorized to possess
marihuana for
medical purposes are still prohibited from possessing cannabis products extracted from the active medicinal compounds in the cannabis plant.
This appeal requires us to decide whether a
medical access regime that only permits
access to dried
marihuana unjustifiably violates the guarantee of life, liberty and security of the person contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.
[2] The parties accept the conclusion of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker (2000), 2000 CanLII 5762 (ON CA), 146 C.C.C. (3d) 193, that a blanket prohibition on
medical access to
marihuana infringes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Class is defined as: «All persons who were sent a letter from Health Canada in November 2013 that had the phrase «
Marihuana Medical Access Program» or «Programme d'acces a la
marihuana a des fins medicales» visible on the front of the envelope.»
Eventually, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that certain provisions of the MMAR were contrary to the rights to liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter, as they failed to provide reasonable
access to a legal source of supply of
marihuana for
medical purposes, required some applicants to have the support of two specialists to establish
medical need (depending on the nature of their illness), and exposed those in need of
medical marihuana to criminal liability if they could not comply with the MMAR (see Hitzig v. Canada (2003), 231 D.L.R. (4th) 104, 2003 CanLII 30796 (ON C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 5).
In other words, there is no connection between the prohibition non non-dried forms of
medical marihuana and the health and safety of the patients who qualify for legal
access to
medical marihuana.»