Bennett v. Canada (Attorney General)

Bennett v. Canada (Attorney General)

Minister’s refusal of a s.56 exemption was reasonable and entitled to deference; applicant failed to prove his daily production and possession of seven grams of marihuana is a religious practice within s.2(a) (no nexus to a comprehensive system of faith), s.7 interests were either not engaged or accorded with principles of fundamental justice given binding Supreme Court precedent upholding CDSA prohibitions, s.15 not breached, and any prima facie breaches are justified under s.1; mandamus and declaration of invalidity are inappropriate.

Citation
2011 FC 1310
Parties
Applicant: Christopher Bennett; Respondent: Attorney General for Canada; Respondent: Minister of Health for Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Ministerial Decision Under Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; Charter Challenge / Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Freedom of Religion S.2(a), Section 7 Liberty and Principles of Fundamental Justice, Section 15 Equality, Section 1 Oakes Justification, Ministerial Discretion S.56 CDSA, Medical Marihuana Regulation
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Health Law Freedom of Religion S.2(a) Section 7 Liberty and Principles of Fundamental Justice Section 15 Equality Section 1 Oakes Justification +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Bennett

Applicant

Attorney General for Canada

Respondent

Minister of Health for Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Ministerial Decision Under Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; Charter Challenge / Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate standard of review for Ministerial s.56 discretion
  2. 2 Whether prohibitions and denial of exemption breach s.2(a), s.7 or s.15 of the Charter
  3. 3 If breach proven, whether justified under s.1 and what remedy is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Minister’s refusal of a s.56 exemption was reasonable and entitled to deference; applicant failed to prove his daily production and possession of seven grams of marihuana is a religious practice within s.2(a) (no nexus to a comprehensive system of faith), s.7 interests were either not engaged or accorded with principles of fundamental justice given binding Supreme Court precedent upholding CDSA prohibitions, s.15 not breached, and any prima facie breaches are justified under s.1; mandamus and declaration of invalidity are inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs
  • Declaration of invalidity refused (no invalidity of sections 4 and 7 of CDSA found)