R. v. Marshall et al.

R. v. Marshall et al.

The court granted the Crown's summary dismissal application because, applying the Haevischer manifestly frivolous standard, the defence failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold: the expert reports do not establish historical Mi'kmaq use or trade of psychoactive cannabis nor continuity to the modern...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 NSPC 33
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Defendant: Matthew Alexander Cope; Defendant: Darren Charles Marshall; Defendant: Alisha Dawn Brooks; Defendant: Jason Robert Brooks
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal (charges Under Cannabis Act and Excise Act) / Pre Trial Summary Dismissal Application (haevischer Motion)
Outcome
Application to summarily dismiss the defendants' constitutional/Treaty and aboriginal rights defences granted
Legal Topics
Treaty Rights, Aboriginal Rights, Duty to Consult, Cannabis Regulation, Excise Duties, Summary Dismissal (manifestly Frivolous)
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Aboriginal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Treaty Rights Aboriginal Rights Duty to Consult Cannabis Regulation +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

Matthew Alexander Cope

Defendant

Darren Charles Marshall

Defendant

Alisha Dawn Brooks

Defendant

Jason Robert Brooks

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (charges Under Cannabis Act and Excise Act) / Pre Trial Summary Dismissal Application (haevischer Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants have an aboriginal or Treaty right to trade or retail cannabis that exempts them from application of the Cannabis Act and Excise Act
  2. 2 Whether the Crown had a duty to consult prior to enactment of the Cannabis Act relevant to these defendants
  3. 3 Whether the lands at issue are unceded and support aboriginal title

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the Crown's summary dismissal application because, applying the Haevischer manifestly frivolous standard, the defence failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold: the expert reports do not establish historical Mi'kmaq use or trade of psychoactive cannabis nor continuity to the modern dispensary activity, the other legal arguments are non-justiciable or previously rejected, and therefore there is no reasonable prospect that the constitutional/Treaty and aboriginal rights defences will succeed on the facts and law presented.

Court Disposition

Application to summarily dismiss the defendants' constitutional/Treaty and aboriginal rights defences granted

Orders

  • Crown's application to summarily dismiss the constitutional/Treaty and aboriginal rights defences is granted
  • Constitutional/Treaty and aboriginal issues as pleaded are dismissed on the basis of the record before the Court (defendants may replead or re-present with a stronger evidentiary foundation)