Kubby v. Regina et al

Kubby v. Regina et al

Petition dismissed because petitioner failed to present sufficient admissible evidence to establish on the balance of probabilities a s.7 Charter infringement or the invalidity of the MMARs; existing jurisprudence (Hitzig, Malmo-Levine) and regulatory amendments support the validity and enforceability of the MMARs, and procedural/regulatory grounds justified refusal of the application; costs awarded to Crown.

Citation
2005 BCSC 641
Parties
Petitioner: Michele Kubby; Respondent: Regina; Respondent: Solicitor General of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge Under the Charter / Hearing on Petition (oral Reasons in Chambers)
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (mmar), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (cdsa), Medical Use of Cannabis, Judicial Review, Evidentiary Sufficiency, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Health Law Charter S.7 Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (mmar) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (cdsa) Medical Use of Cannabis +3 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michele Kubby

Petitioner

Regina

Respondent

Solicitor General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge Under the Charter / Hearing on Petition (oral Reasons in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the MMARs are invalid and void under s.7 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether CDSA s.4(1) and regulations were rendered ineffective by R. v. Parker and thus MMARs are nullities
  3. 3 Whether petitioner established a real or imminent deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person and an infringement not in accordance with principles of fundamental justice

Ratio Decidendi

Petition dismissed because petitioner failed to present sufficient admissible evidence to establish on the balance of probabilities a s.7 Charter infringement or the invalidity of the MMARs; existing jurisprudence (Hitzig, Malmo-Levine) and regulatory amendments support the validity and enforceability of the MMARs, and procedural/regulatory grounds justified refusal of the application; costs awarded to Crown.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed
  • No declaration granted that the MMARs are invalid