R. v. Clarke

R. v. Clarke

Given multiple decisions in separate provinces finding s.4(1) of the CDSA invalid and in the absence of corrective legislation, continuing a prosecution under that provision in a jurisdiction where the law has been so undermined would be oppressive and vexatious and constitute an abuse of process; accordingly a stay...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2003 NSPC 12
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Paula Clarke
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Possession of Cannabis / Pre Trial Application for Dismissal or Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
Stay of proceedings entered
Legal Topics
Possession of Cannabis, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.4(1), Abuse of Process, Stay of Proceedings, Stare Decisis, Judicial Comity, Charter Implications
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Possession of Cannabis Controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.4(1) Abuse of Process Stay of Proceedings Stare Decisis +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Paula Clarke

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Possession of Cannabis / Pre Trial Application for Dismissal or Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is invalid such that simple possession is not an offence known to law
  2. 2 Whether continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process (oppressive or vexatious) warranting a stay
  3. 3 Whether this Court should follow decisions from other provinces (Parker, J.P., Hitzig, Barnes, Stavert) under principles of stare decisis and judicial comity

Ratio Decidendi

Given multiple decisions in separate provinces finding s.4(1) of the CDSA invalid and in the absence of corrective legislation, continuing a prosecution under that provision in a jurisdiction where the law has been so undermined would be oppressive and vexatious and constitute an abuse of process; accordingly a stay of proceedings is warranted to preserve fundamental justice and national uniformity in the application of federal law.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings entered

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings entered in respect of the charge of possession of cannabis contrary to s.4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act