Opinion of The Court
The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed.
The opinion of the Court was given by McLachlin C.J. Arbour, LeBel, and Deschamps JJ. each gave dissenting opinions.
It has been well established, McLachlin claimed, that the risk of imprisonment creates a violation of an accused's liberty and security of person under section 7. However, in this case it is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The purpose of the section is to protect the "core of what it means to be an autonomous human being blessed with dignity and independence in matters that can properly be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal". Smoking marijuana, it is held, is not included.
McLachlin then considered the claim of whether the law was "overbreadth" as in R. v. Heywood. She finds that the law is not grossly disproportionate to the interest of the government to avoid harm caused directly or indirectly by the use of the drug, citing operation of motor vehicles or other complex machinery as sufficient dangers to warrant prohibition. Furthermore, there was no convincing evidence that looser prohibition would be as effective.
McLachlin dismissed the argument that the term "narcotic" in the act was ambiguous and could be read to exclude the cuttings as there was no THC in it.
Read more about this topic: R. V. Clay
Famous quotes containing the words opinion and/or court:
“He is superstitious grown of late,
Quite from the main opinion he held once
Of fantasy, of dreams, and ceremonies.”
—William Shakespeare (1564–1616)
“I know one husband and wife who, whatever the official reasons given to the court for the break up of their marriage, were really divorced because the husband believed that nobody ought to read while he was talking and the wife that nobody ought to talk while she was reading.”
—Vera Brittain (1893–1970)