V o lu m e 7 (2 ) C a s e n o te s 77

R egina v Parker
(2000) 188 DLR (4th) 385

S h aron O ffenberger*

T he W o rk in g P arty o n th e U se o f C a n n a b is for M e d ica l P u r p o se s (N S W ) r e le a se d its

final rep ort in A u g u s t 2000. It r e c o m m e n d e d that the N S W G o v e r n m e n t b e g in lo n g
term resea rch an d d e v e lo p m e n t o f m ariju an a for m e d ic a l u se .

The rep ort c o n c lu d e d that in th e sh o rt term , p e o p le w h o require m ariju an a for

m ed ic a l treatm en t sh o u ld be p r o te c te d from crim in al p ro secu tio n . C u ltiv a tio n of
m arijuana b y carers w a s also a n tic ip a te d , w h ere a p e r so n b e n e fits from th e u se of
m ed ic a l m arijuana b u t is u n a b le to c u ltiv a te it for h im or h erself. It w a s a c k n o w le d g e d
that s m o k in g m arijuana m a y n o t b e th e m o st d esira b le m e th o d to b e n e fit m e d ic a lly
from m arijuana, so lo n g er term research an d d e v e lo p m e n t w a s r e c o m m e n d e d to
d e te r m in e safe m e th o d s o f a d m in iste r in g the m ed ica l p ro p erties o f can n ab is.

T h ese r e c o m m e n d a tio n s accord w it h reform s in o th e r co u n tries to p e r m it the

c u ltiv a tio n a n d p o s s e s s io n o f m a riju a n a b y in d iv id u a ls u s in g it for m e d ic a l
p u r p o s e s .*1 T h ey a ls o c o n fo r m w it h in te r n a tio n a l o b lig a tio n s. U n ite d N a tio n s
c o n v e n tio n s, to w h ic h A u stra lia is a party, r e co g n ise th a t certain illicit d r u g s m a y be
u se fu l for restricted m e d ic a l p u r p o s e s an d sp e c ific a lly n o te the m e d ic in a l u se of
ca n n a b is.2

The N S W W ork in g P arty report referred to sp e c ific c o n d itio n s for w h ic h m arijuana

is a c c e p te d as b e in g m e d ic a lly b e n e fic ia l and r e c o m m e n d e d that p e o p le w ith th o se
c o n d itio n s s h o u ld b e e n title d to c o m p a s sio n a te p ro tectio n . T h ese in c lu d e A ID S and
can cer rela ted w a stin g , effects o f c h em o th era p y , n e u r o lo g ic a l d iso r d e r s a n d p a in n o t
r e lie v e d b y c o n v e n tio n a l a n a lg e sic s. T h e report referred o n ly to case s tu d y e v id e n c e
that m ariju an a w a s e ffe c tiv e in c o n tr o llin g e p ile p tic se iz u r e s.

* Former Principal Solicitor, NSW Disability Discrimination Legal Centre Inc.

1 A number of states in the US have legalised marijuana for medicinal use despite the fact that it conflicts
with federal law, including California, Oregon, Alaska and Hawaii. The Netherlands Government
announced an intention to create an Office on Medicinal Cannabis in 2001.
2 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961; Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971; United Nations
Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988.
78 A u s tr a lia n J o u rn a l o f H u m a n R ig h ts 2001

T he C a n a d ia n G o v e r n m e n t h a s tak en m ore su b s ta n tiv e s te p s to w a r d s a llo w in g

m ariju an a for m e d ic in a l u se . It h as recen tly e n a c te d r e g u la tio n s that p r o v id e access
to m ariju an a for s e r io u s ly ill C an ad ian s, a u th o r isin g p o s s e s s io n and c u ltiv a tio n o f
m ariju an a for m ed ica l p u r p o s e s .3 T h ese la w s w e r e m a d e in r e sp o n s e to th e O n ta rio
C ou rt o f A p p e a l d e c is io n in R v Parker. T he case in v o lv e d a n a p p e a l b y th e C r o w n o f
the first in sta n c e d e c is io n in the O n tario C ou rt o f Justice. T h e C r o w n a r g u e d th a t th e
trial ju d g e erred in fin d in g th at the crim in al p ro h ib itio n o f m ariju an a w a s o v erb ro a d
an d u n c o n stitu tio n a l.

C rim in al p ro secu tio n of M r Parker

The case b egan as a crim inal p rosecu tion of Terrance Parker, w h o h as epilep sy. E p ilep sy
is a d isord er that disturbs a p erson 's electrical brain activity th ereb y cau sin g seizu res. Mr
Parker fou n d that u sin g m arijuana w a s the m ost effective treatm ent to prevent h is seizures.
H e ad m itted to g r o w in g an d sm o k in g m arijuana as w e ll as g iv in g sm all a m o u n ts to
other p e o p le w h o h e k n e w required it for their m ed ical con d ition . H e w a s ch arged with:

(a) c u ltiv a tin g a n arcotic (C an n ab is M arijuana) con trary to s 6(1) o f th e Narcotic

Control Act 1985 (RSC, c N - l ) (N C A );
(b) u n la w fu lly p o s s e s s in g for the p u r p o se o f traffick in g a n arcotic (C a n n a b is
M ariju an a) con trary to s 4 o f th e N C A ;
(c) u n la w fu lly p o s s e s s in g a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e (C a n n a b is M arijuana) con trary to
s 4 o f the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 1996 (SC, c l9 ) (C D S A ).4

In th e O n tario C ou rt o f Justice, S h ep p a rd J a c c e p te d M r P ark er's e v id e n c e that

s m o k in g m arijuana w a s th e m o st k n o w n effe c tiv e trea tm en t (w h e n c o m b in e d w ith
h is p rescrib ed d ru g s) th a t g e n e r a lly e lim in a te d th e s y m p to m s o f h is ep ile p sy . M r
Parker g a v e e v id e n c e th at h e h ad e x p e r ie n c e d n o g ran d m a l se iz u r e s w h e n h e
s m o k e d regu larly and th a t if h e c o u ld fe e l a se iz u r e c o m in g o n , sm o k in g m arijuana
w o u ld a lle v ia te it w ith in m in u tes. H e also testified th at if h e c e a se d sm o k in g
m ariju an a, the se iz u r e s w o u ld b e g in a g a in regu larly w ith in d a y s.

T he circ u m sta n ces o f th e case w ere n o t in d is p u te . M r Parker a d m itte d to the

c r im in a l ch arges. H o w e v e r , M r Parker a rg u ed that th e s e crim in a l p r o v is io n s
in fr in g e d h is c o n stitu tio n a l righ ts u n d e r the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
If s u c c e s sfu l in h is a r g u m e n t, the C ou rt w o u ld eith er strik e d o w n the crim in al
m ariju an a p r o v isio n s or read in an e x e m p tio n a llo w in g th e u se o f m arijuana for

3 Marihuana Medical Access Regulations 2001.

4 The Narcotic Control Act 1985 was repealed and replaced by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 1996.
V o lu m e 7 (2 ) C a s e n o te s 79

m ed ica l p u r p o se s. M r Parker w o u ld th en be p ro tected from c r im in a l p e n a ltie s.

T he traffick in g ch arge w a s n o t c o n sid e r e d in the a p p e a l a n d it d id n o t relate to the

c o n stitu tio n a l issu e s.

Evidence of the m edical p ro p erties of m ariju an a

In 1987, M r Parker's p h y sicia n a d v is e d that the sid e effects o f h is prescription
m ed ica tio n s w ere so severe that h ig h e r d o sa g es co u ld n o t b e u se d . H is p h y sicia n
a d v ised h im to regularly u se m arijuana in conjunction w ith h is p rescrip tion m ed icin e to
control h is seizu res. W hile the p h y sicia n w as en titled to m ak e su c h recom m en d ation ,
there is n o legally available m arijuana in C anada that M r Parker c o u ld obtain.

T he a ctiv e in g r e d ie n ts in m ariju an a are called c a n n a b in o id s. T h e m a in in g r e d ie n t in

m arijuana, w h ic h g iv e s it th e p sy c h o a c tiv e effect, is te tr a h y d r o c a n n a b in o l (T H C ). A
sy n th e tic form of T H C is a v a ila b le in N o rth A m erica b y p r e sc r ip tio n .5

A sid e fr o m THC, it is b e lie v e d th at oth er c a n n a b in o id s m a y h a v e a n ti-seizu re

p r o p e r tie s. C a n n a b id io l (C B D ) is th o u g h t to b e o n e o f th e m o s t p r o m is in g
c a n n a b in o id s w ith a n ti-c o n v u lsa n t p ro p erties (Z im m er & M o r g a n 1997: 17). C BD
d o e s n o t h a v e a p sy c h o a c tiv e sid e e ffe c t and is n o t a v a ila b le b y p rescrip tio n .

T here is a d istin c tio n b e tw e e n th e b en eficia l p r o p e r tie s o f T H C a n d C BD . T he

e v id e n c e s h o w e d that Mr P ark er's c o n d itio n a p p e a r e d to b e n e fit from the C BD
rather th a n TH C. S y n th etic TH C (M arin ol) w a s in e ffe c tiv e for M r Parker. S m o k in g
m ariju an a w a s the o n ly w a y that C B D c o u ld b e a d m in iste r e d .

C onv en tio n al m edication or m edical m ariju an a

S tudies p resented to the C ourt su g g e ste d that can n ab in oid s in crease the effectiven ess o f
co n ven tion al m ed ication u sed to treat epilepsy, but are n o t a rep lacem en t for those drugs.

M r P ark er's c o n v e n tio n a l m e d ic a tio n in c lu d e d P h e n y to in (D ila n tin ) a n d P r im id o n e

(M y so lin e ), w h ic h are c o m m o n d r u g s u sed to treat ep ile p sy . T h e s id e effects o f
D ila n tin in clu d e d r o w sin e s s, g u m p ro b lem s, brain a n d liv er d a m a g e . M a in ta in in g
the p rescrib ed d o sa g e is p articu larly im p o rta n t, as an o v e r -d o s a g e c o u ld b e toxic a n d
a s u d d e n w ith d r a w a l sim ilarly d a n g e r o u s. Mr P ark er's p h y s ic ia n te stifie d that

5 Dronabinol (synthetic THC) is known by the trade name Marinol. Synthetic THC is not available in
Australia.
80 A u s tr a lia n Jo u rn a l o f H u m a n R ig h ts 2001

c o n tr o llin g M r P ark er's se iz u r e s w a s b e st a c h ie v e d th r o u g h a c o m b in a tio n of

c o n v e n tio n a l m e d ic a tio n s a n d sm o k in g m arijuana.

T he h a r m s a sso c ia te d w ith th e u s e o f m arijuana for m e d ic in a l p u r p o se s m u s t be

w e ig h e d a g a in st h a r m fu l e ffects o f c o n v e n tio n a l m e d ic a tio n . S m o k in g m ariju an a is
c o n sid e r e d an in ex a ct m e th o d o f d is p e n s in g CBD or T H C to th e body. H o w e v e r , it
m a y b e b e n e fic ia l in acu te situ a tio n s b e c a u se it can b e a b so r b e d in the b lo o d str e a m
m ore q u ic k ly th a n a sy n th e tic v e r sio n (Z im m er & M o r g a n 1997: 18).

T he C o u r t fo u n d th at w h ile sm o k in g m arijuana is a lso h a r m fu l to the lu n g s, it is

th o u g h t th at m e d ic in a l u se r s sm o k e m u ch less th a n an a v e r a g e cigarette sm ok er.
M ariju an a u se r s m a y th erefore n o t su ffer as m u c h p u lm o n a r y harm as tob acco
s m o k e r s.6 O n th e o th er h a n d , m arijuana sm o k e p r o v id e s m o re th an tw ice the a m o u n t
o f tar a n d fiv e tim e s th e a m o u n t o f carbon m o n o x id e to th e lu n g s (G r in sp o o n &
B akalar 1997: 250).

T he C o u r t o f A p p e a l a c c e p te d th at o n th e b a sis o f th e k n o w n e v id e n c e , th e b e n e fits
o f m e d ic a l m a riju a n a u s e o u tw e ig h th e h a r m s a s s o c ia te d w it h s m o k in g m ariju an a.
R o se n b e r g JA w a s c a refu l to n o te that n o co n c r e te c o n c lu s io n a b o u t th e h a r m fu l
e ffe c ts o f m a riju a n a c o u ld b e rea ch ed o n th e e v id e n c e . H o w e v e r , c o u r ts w e r e
ty p ic a lly req u ired to m a k e d e c is io n s o n th e a v a ila b le k n o w le d g e at th e tim e. H e
sta te d that:

s c ie n tis ts ca n c o n tin u e to s t u d y a p r o b le m u n til it is r e s o lv e d ... T h e fact that o n the cu rren t

s ta te o f th e r e sea rch n o su c h n e g a tiv e c o n c lu s io n [o n th e h a r m fu l effe c ts o f m ariju an a] can
b e r e a c h e d is n o t a s ta te m e n t fo r sc ie n tis ts tha t th ere is n o h a rm , o n ly that m o re s tu d ie s m a y
h a v e to b e d o n e . Trial j u d g e s d o n o t h a v e that lu x u ry . T h e y are req u ired to reach a
c o n c lu s io n o n th e b a sis o f th e record p la c e d b e fo re th e m b y th e p a r tie s.

Issu es on ap p eal — b reach in g the C harter

M r Parker s o u g h t a d e c la r a tio n that the crim in al p r o v is io n s u n d er w h ic h h e w a s
c h a r g e d w e r e o v erb ro a d a n d u n c o n stitu tio n a l as th e y relate to an in d iv id u a l w h o
h a d a p e r so n a l m e d ic a l n e c e ss ity for u sin g m arijuana. H is ca se d e p e n d e d u p o n the
in terp reta tio n an d a p p lic a tio n o f s 7 o f th e Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

6 The court stated that cases of lung cancer or emphysema in marijuana only smokers are rare or
unreported. However, the Working Party on the Use of Cannabis for Medical Purposes in New South
Wales provided a more detailed report of the harmful effects of cannabis smoking, noting for example,
that cannabis smokers use unfiltered cigarettes, increasing potential pulmonary damage (at 7.5.2).
V o lu m e 7 (2 ) C a s e n o te s 81

S ection 7 sta tes 'e v e r y o n e h a s th e r ig h t to life, lib erty a n d secu rity o f the p e r so n an d
the righ t n o t to b e d e p r iv e d th ereo f e x c e p t in acco rd a n ce w ith the p r in c ip le s o f
fu n d a m e n ta l ju stice'.

Security o f the person

Each part o f s 7 w a s con sid ered separately. R osenberg JA (C atzm an and C harron J]
concurring) based h is ju d gm en t p red o m in a n tly on the violation of security of the person.

The C ourt accep ted that Mr P arker's e p ile p s y co u ld b e life th reaten in g if h is se izu res
w ere n o t p rop erly con trolled . A sid e from th e v ery real p h y sica l c o n se q u e n c e s,
Mr Parker w o u ld a lso b e liv in g w ith th e con stan t fear a n d an xiety that h e m a y h a v e a
seizure. A s a result, th e m arijuana p ro h ib itio n in terferes w ith h is h ea lth an d therefore
h is secu rity interest.

R osen b erg JA referred to the ju d g m e n ts in R v Morgentaler. Morgentaler's ca se w a s the

lan d m ark ju d g m e n t b y the S u p r e m e C o u r t o f C a n a d a in w h ic h C a n a d a 's a b o rtio n
la w s w ere struck d o w n for v io la tin g th e c o n stitu tio n a l p ro tectio n c o n ta in e d in s 7 o f
the Charter. B eetz J, in Morgentaler sta te d that se c u r ity o f th e p e r so n 'm u st in c lu d e a
righ t to a ccess to m e d ic a l treatm en t for a c o n d itio n r e p resen tin g a d a n g e r to life or
h ea lth w ith o u t fear o f crim in al sa n c tio n '.

R o sen b erg JA d r e w a clear p a ra llel w it h Mr P ark er's case, c itin g Morgentaler as

authority. H e a g r e e d that:

If an A c t o f P a r lia m e n t fo rces a p e r s o n w h o s e life o r h e a lth is in d a n g e r to c h o o s e b e tw e e n ,

o n th e o n e h a n d , th e c o m m is s io n o f a c r im e to o b ta in e ffe c tiv e a n d tim e ly m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t
an d , o n th e o th e r h a n d , in a d e q u a te tr e a tm e n t or n o tr e a tm e n t at all, th e rig h t to se c u r ity o f
th e p e r s o n h a s b e e n v io la te d .

In M r P arker's situ a tio n , the c r im in a lisa tio n o f m ariju an a u se forced h im to c h o o se

b e tw e e n u sin g an ille g a l su b sta n c e to o b ta in e ffe c tiv e m e d ic a l treatm en t a n d fearin g
for h is h ealth . R o sen b erg JA sta te d th a t the 'p r o h ib itio n tells Parker th at h e ca n n o t
u n d erta k e a g e n e r a lly safe m e d ic a l trea tm en t that m ig h t b e o f clear b e n e fit to h im '.

W ith ou t access to rea so n a b ly req u ired m ed ic a l treatm en t, a p e r so n 's se c u r ity of

h ea lth an d life is jeo p a rd ised . T he se c u r ity of a p e r so n is d e p r iv e d if h e or sh e is
th reaten ed w ith crim in al sa n c tio n in a tte m p tin g to se c u r e their h ealth , p a rticu la rly if
h e or sh e is im p r iso n e d . Like Morgentaler's case, s 7 p ro tects the righ t to m a k e c h o ic e s
co n cern in g o n e 's o w n b o d y a n d c o n tr o l o v er o n e 's p h y sic a l an d p sy c h o lo g ic a l
in teg rity free from in terferen ce b y crim in a l p ro h ib itio n .
82 A u s tr a lia n J o u rn a l o f H u m a n R ig h ts 2001

L ib erty
R o se n b e r g JA c o n sid e r e d th a t M r P a rk er's lib erty w a s d e p r iv e d in tw o w a y s. First,
M r P a rk er's lib erty w a s in fr in g e d b y b e in g su b ject to cr im in a l p r o se c u tio n a n d
p o s s ib le in carceration . It w a s clear that in carceration w o u ld h a v e a p a rticu la rly
s e r io u s effe c t o n M r P a rk er's c o n d itio n as h e w o u ld be p r e v e n te d fro m o b ta in in g
e ffe c tiv e trea tm en t to co n tro l h is se iz u r e s. H o w e v e r , R o se n b e r g JA n o te d th at
in ca rce ra tio n in itse lf w a s a d e p r iv a tio n o f liberty, r e g a r d le ss o f th e p articu lar
im p a c t o n M r Parker. F urther, th e th reat to se c u r ity o f th e p e r s o n d is c u s s e d a b o v e
a m o u n te d to a se r io u s d e p r iv a tio n o f liberty.

S e c o n d , 'lib erty in c lu d e s a d e g r e e o f p erso n a l a u to n o m y o v e r fu n d a m e n ta l p erso n a l

d e c is io n s'. M r Parker w a s a sse r tin g m ore th an a p referen ce for m arijuana in the
c irc u m sta n ces. H e p r e se n te d su ffic ie n t e v id e n c e to s h o w th at sm o k in g m arijuana
w a s a rea so n a b le m e d ic a l d e c is io n , in v ie w of th e h ea lth im p lic a tio n s a n d the lack o f
v ia b le a ltern a tiv e th era p ies. H e a lso h a d h is p h y sic ia n 's a p p r o v a l.

R o sen b erg JA sta ted th at 'to in tru d e in to that d e c is io n m a k in g p r o c e ss th rou gh th e

threat o f crim in al p r o se c u tio n is a se r io u s d e p r iv a tio n o f lib erty'.

P rin cip les of fu n d a m e n tal justice

T h e te r m s o f s 7 p r o v id e th a t th e r ig h t to lib e r ty a n d s e c u r ity o f th e p e r so n m u s t
b e e v a lu a t e d in lig h t o f th e p r in c ip le s o f fu n d a m e n ta l ju stic e . D e p r iv a tio n o f an
in d iv id u a l r ig h t m a y b e ju s tifie d in c rim in a l la w b y p r o te c tin g a s o c ie ta l (sta te )
in te r e st. T h e C r o w n a r g u e d th at th e o b je c tiv e s o f th e m a riju a n a p r o h ib itio n w e r e
to p r e v e n t the h a r m s a s s o c ia te d w ith sm o k in g m a riju a n a , in c lu d in g harm to
h u m a n h e a lth a n d th e n e c e s s a r y c o n tr o l o f th e d o m e s tic a n d in te r n a tio n a l ille g a l
d r u g tra d e.

T he C ou rt r e v ie w e d ca se la w w h e r e the crim in a l la w in te r se c ts w ith m ed ical

trea tm en t an d id e n tifie d fiv e p r in c ip le s o f fu n d a m e n ta l ju stic e .7

1. T h e p r in c ip le s o f fu n d a m e n ta l ju stice are b rea ch ed w h e r e th e d e p r iv a tio n o f th e

rig h t in q u e stio n d o e s little or n o th in g to e n h a n c e the sta te 's in terest.
2. A b la n k e t p ro h ib itio n w ill be c o n sid e r e d arbitrary or u n fair a n d th u s in breach o f
th e p r in c ip le s o f fu n d a m e n ta l ju stic e if it is u n rela ted to th e sta te's interest in
e n a c tin g the p ro h ib itio n , an d if it lack s a fo u n d a tio n in th e le g a l tradition an d
so c ie ta l b e lie fs th at are sa id to b e rep resen ted b y th e p ro h ib itio n .

7 Rosenberg JA noted that this was not an exhaustive list.

V o lu m e 7 (2 ) C a s e n o te s 83

3. T he a b s e n c e o f a clear le g a l sta n d a r d m a y c o n tr ib u te to a v io la tio n of

fu n d a m e n ta l ju stice.
4. If a sta tu to r y d e fe n c e c o n ta in s s o m a n y p o te n tia l b arriers to its o w n o p e r a tio n
that th e d e fe n c e it creates w ill in m a n y c ir c u m sta n c e s b e p ra ctica lly u n a v a ila b le
to p e r so n s w h o prim a facie q u a lify for the d e fe n c e , it w ill b e fo u n d to v io la te the
p r in c ip le s o f fu n d a m en ta l ju stice.
5. A n a d m in istr a tiv e structure m a d e u p o f u n n e c e ss a r y rules, w h ic h re su lt in an
a d d itio n a l risk to the h e a lth o f th e p erson , is m a n ife stly u n fair a n d d o e s n o t
co n fo r m to th e p rin cip les of fu n d a m e n ta l ju stice.

W h en th e state in terest is w e ig h e d a g a in st the p e r so n a l in terest o f M r Parker, a

b lan k et p r o h ib itio n on p o s s e s s io n a n d c u ltiv a tio n o f m ariju an a, w ith o u t a n e x c e p tio n
for m e d ic a l u se 'd o e s little or n o th in g to en h a n c e th e sta te in terest'. If th e sta te's
in terest in p r o h ib itin g m arijuana in c lu d e s p r e v e n tin g a u ser from h e a lth related
h arm s a ss o c ia te d w ith m arijuana u se , it is irrational to d e p r iv e a p e r so n o f th e d ru g
w h e n h e or sh e requ ires it to m a in ta in their h ealth .

R o se n b e r g JA a ls o referred to c o m m o n la w d o c tr in e s th a t s u p p o r t e d se lf-
d e te r m in a tio n in relation to m e d ic a l care. P rin cip les su c h as in fo r m e d c o n s e n t an d
sa n ctity o f life, a s w e ll as c o m m o n ly h e ld so c ie ta l b e lie fs a b o u t m e d ic a l trea tm en t
s u g g e s t th a t a b road crim inal p r o h ib itio n that p r e v e n ts a ccess to n e c e ssa r y m e d ic in e
is n o t c o n siste n t w ith fu n d a m e n ta l ju stice.

T he C r o w n a rg u ed that the p r in c ip le s of fu n d a m e n ta l ju stice are n o t b rea ch ed

b e c a u se Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 1996 (C D S A ) p r o v id e s for three
p r o c e d u r e s by w h ic h M r Parker c o u ld le g a lly p o s s e s s m arijuana. A lth o u g h the
r e g u la tio n s co n ta in ed a p roced u re for the a p p r o v a l o f n e w d r u g s, the C ou rt
c o n sid e r e d this p roced u re a practical im p o ssib ility for M r Parker. T he C r o w n a r g u e d
that it is n o t the fau lt of the le g isla tio n , b u t the fact th a t n o o n e h a s c o m e fo rw a rd to
to o b ta in th e n e w dru g ap p roval. H o w e v e r , the p r o c e ss for a p p r o v a l o f a n e w d ru g
in v o lv e s th e ex p e n d itu r e o f h u n d r e d s o f th o u s a n d s o f d o lla rs an d is a c o m m ercia l
rather th a n p e r so n a l ven tu re.

T h e r e g u la tio n s a ls o p r o v id e an E m e r g e n c y D r u g R e le a se (C o m p a s s io n a te U se )
P ro g ra m . T h is a llo w s an a p p lic a tio n to be m a d e fo r a c c e ss to a n o th e r w is e n o n -
m a r k e ta b le d r u g . A g a in , the C o u rt h e ld th at th e th e o r e tic a l a v a ila b ility o f th is
p r o g r a m to M r Parker ru n s u p a g a in s t the p r a c tic a l b arrier th a t th ere is n o le g a lly
lic e n s e d so u r c e o f m arijuana.

T he p ra ctica l u n a v a ila b ility of m ariju an a d u e to th e a d m in istr a tiv e stru ctu re

p r e v e n ts M r Parker and oth er p e o p le w h o require m ariju an a for m e d ic a l p u r p o se s
84 A u s tr a lia n Jo u rn a l o f H u m a n R ig h ts 2001

from o b ta in in g a p r e sc r ip tio n for the d ru g b e c a u se o f the a b se n c e o f a le g a l su p p ly.

T h e th eoretical p o s s ib ility o f a le g a l su p p ly o f m arijuana d id n o t a d d r e ss M r P ark er's
d irect n e e d a n d in v o lv e d m u c h larger q u e stio n s o f d ru g p o licy . T herefore it d id n o t
accord w ith th e p r in c ip le s o f fu n d a m e n ta l ju stice.

The C D SA also p r o v id e d a p rocess of person al e x em p tio n in s 56, w h ich is d isc u sse d

below .

P ersonal ex em p tio n — section 56

U n d e r s 56 o f th e C D S A , a p e r so n c o u ld a p p ly for a m in iste r ia l e x e m p tio n from the
crim in a l p r o v is io n s o f th e A c t.8 R o sen b erg JA referred to an In terim G u id a n c e
D o c u m e n t r e le a se d b y H e a lth C a n a d a in M a y 1999 that o u tlin e d th e p r o c e ss for
C a n a d ia n s to o b ta in e x e m p tio n s u n d e r s 56. W itn e sse s in th e c a se te stifie d that, at the
tim e o f th e a p p e a l, the M in ister o f H ea lth h a d gran ted o n ly tw o ca n n a b is e x e m p tio n s
u n d e r s 5 6.9

W h ilst s 56 w a s n o t ra ise d at th e in itial trial, R o sen b erg JA n e v e r th e le ss c o n sid e r e d

w h e th e r an e x c e p tio n th at relies o n the d isc r e tio n o f the M in ister w a s su ffic ie n t to
m e e t th e c o n s t itu t io n a l sta n d a r d s . To th is q u e s tio n , h is H o n o u r h e ld th at
'n o tw ith s ta n d in g the th eo retica l a v a ila b ility o f the s 56 p r o c e ss, th e m a rih u a n a [sic]
p r o h ib itio n d o e s n o t a ccord w ith th e p r in c ip le s of fu n d a m e n ta l ju stice'.

S ectio n 56 p r o v id e d a n a b so lu te d isc r e tio n b a se d o n th e M in iste r 's o p in io n as to

w h e th e r an e x c e p tio n is 'n e c e ssa r y for a m e d i c a l ... p u r p o se ', a p h ra se n ot d e fin e d in
th e A ct. F urther th e g u id e lin e s is s u e d b y H e a lth C an ad a p r o v id e d o n ly a list o f n o n -
e x h a u stiv e cir c u m sta n c e s in w h ic h an e x e m p tio n m a y be g ra n ted b u t d id n o t lim it
th e M in iste r 's d isc r e tio n .

T he C ou rt h e ld th at w ith o u t an a d e q u a te le g isla te d sta n d a rd and in v ie w o f the

u n fe tte r e d d isc r e tio n o f th e M in ister, the d e p r iv a tio n o f P ark er's righ t to secu rity of
the p e r so n d id n o t accord w ith th e p r in c ip le s o f fu n d a m e n ta l ju stice. R o sen b erg JA
sta ted that:

8 Section 56: The Minister may, on such terms and conditions as the Minister deems necessary, exempt any
person or class of persons or any controlled substance or precursor or any class thereof from the
application of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations if, in the opinion of the Minister,
the exemption is necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public interest.
9 While no evidence contradicting these testimonies was presented at trial, Health Canada has claimed
that 71 personal exemptions have been granted (September 2000).
V o lu m e 7 (2 ) C a s e n o te s 85

T h e rig h t to m a k e d e c is io n s th a t are o f fu n d a m e n ta l p e r s o n a l im p o r ta n c e in c lu d e s th e
c h o ic e o f m e d ic a tio n to a lle v ia te th e e ffe c ts o f an illn e s s w it h life -th r e a te n in g c o n s e q u e n c e s .
It d o e s n o t c o m p o r t w it h th e p r in c ip le s o f fu n d a m e n ta l ju s tic e to su b ject th at d e c is io n to
u n fe tte r e d m in is te r ia l d isc r e tio n . It m ig h t w e ll b e c o n s is te n t w it h the p r in c ip le s o f
fu n d a m e n ta l ju stic e to req u ire th e p a tie n t to o b ta in th e a p p r o v a l o f a p h y s ic ia n , th e
tr a d itio n a l w a y in w h ic h su c h d e c is io n s are m a d e . It m ig h t a lso b e c o n sis te n t w ith the
p r in c ip le s o f f u n d a m e n ta l ju s tic e to le g is la te certa in s a fe g u a r d s to e n su r e th a t th e
m a r ih u a n a d o e s n o t e n te r th e illic it m a rk et.

In tern atio n al o b lig atio n s

In 1961, C an ad a a d o p te d the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and th is le d to th e
e n a c tm e n t o f the N C A . The p rea m b le to that C o n v e n tio n b egin s:

T h e P arties,

C o n c e r n e d w it h th e h ea lth a n d w e lfa r e o f m a n k in d ,

R e c o g n iz in g th a t th e m e d ic a l u s e o f n a rco tic d r u g s c o n tin u e s to b e in d is p e n s a b le for th e

r e lief o f p a in a n d su ffe r in g a n d th a t a d e q u a te p r o v is io n m u s t b e m a d e to e n s u r e th e
a v a ila b ility o f n a rco tic d r u g s for s u c h p u r p o s e s ...

T he C ro w n a sse r te d th at o n e o f th e o b jectives o f the m arijuana p r o h ib itio n is to

c o m p ly w ith C a n a d a 's in tern a tio n a l o b lig a tio n s in rela tio n to illicit su b sta n c e s.
R o sen b erg JA n o te d th at the p r e a m b le to the S in g le C o n v e n tio n a llo w e d a m e d ic a l
Convention on Psychotropic
re g u la tio n o f o th e r w is e illeg a l su b s ta n c e s. Further still, th e
Substances (1971) a n d the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988), w h ile req u irin g p a rties to o u tla w th e
c u ltiv a tio n a n d p o s s e s s io n o f c a n n a b is for p erso n a l u se, c o n tin u e to p erm it ca n n a b is
for restricted m e d ic a l p u r p o se s.

T h e C o n v e n tio n s o b lig e c o u n tr ie s to in tr o d u c e s u c h m e a s u r e s 'a s m a y be

n e c e ssa r y '.10 T his m u s t b e read in th e co n tex t o f C an ad a's o w n co n stitu tio n a l
p r in cip les, as c o n ta in e d in the C a n a d ia n Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

T he N C A , rep laced in 1996 b y th e C D S A , w as e n a c te d to fu lfil C a n a d a 's in tern a tio n a l

10 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, art 3 (1):
'Each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its
domestic law ...'.
86 A u s tr a lia n J o u rn a l o f H u m a n R ig h ts 2001

o b lig a tio n s. U n d e r b o th A c ts the p rescrip tio n o f m ariju an a for m ed ic a l u s e w a s

th eo retica lly p o ss ib le b u t b e c a u se there w a s n o le g a l so u r c e o f m ariju an a, th is
p rescrip tio n c o u ld n o t b e fille d . T he C ou rt n o te d th at far m o r e d a n g e r o u s d r u g s su c h
as m o r p h in e a n d h ero in are sub ject to reg u la tio n , n o t o u tr ig h t p ro h ib itio n , a n d a
p a tie n t can o b ta in th e se d r u g s th ro u g h a p h y sic ia n 's p rescrip tio n . M ariju an a,
h o w e v e r , is su b ject to c o m p le te p ro h ib itio n .

R em edial o p tio n s
A fter e sta b lis h in g that th e c rim in a l m arijuana p r o v is io n s v io la te d s 7 o f th e Charter,
the C ou rt h a d to th en d e te r m in e w h a t r e m e d y w o u ld b e th e m o s t ap p ro p ria te.
Mr Parker w a s e n title d to a n e x e m p tio n from th e crim in a l ch a rg es. A s th e c rim in a l
p r o v is io n s w e r e u n c o n stitu tio n a l, the C ou rt c o u ld eith er se v e r th e p r o v is io n s in th eir
e n tirety from th e r ele v a n t A c ts or it c o u ld read in to the s e c tio n s an e x e m p tio n for
m e d ic a l p u r p o se s .

A t first in sta n ce, S h ep p a rd J h e ld that th e a p p ro p ria te r e m e d y w a s o n e o f r e a d in g in

an e x e m p tio n . T h is c o u ld b e se e n as eith er a 'r e a d in g in' or a 'r e a d in g d o w n ' o f th e
crim in a l p r o v is io n s, in th at it a d d e d an e x e m p tio n to th e le g isla tio n .

W h ile u p h o ld in g the trial ju d g e 's fin d in g that th e c rim in a l m ariju an a p r o v is io n s

w e r e o v erb ro a d a n d u n c o n stitu tio n a l, th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l va ried th e r e m e d y
g ra n ted by th e trial ju d g e . R o sen b erg JA c o n sid e r e d th at r e a d in g in an e x e m p tio n
created an u n a c c e p ta b le d e g r e e o f u n certain ty. R e a d in g in an e x e m p tio n w o u ld
p r o v id e no clarity or g u id a n c e as to w h o is e n title d to th e e x e m p tio n an d h o w a
p e r so n b e c o m e s e n title d to th e e x e m p tio n .

In stead , the C ou rt o f A p p e a l stru ck d o w n the m ariju an a p r o h ib itio n co n ta in ed in the

C D S A . T he C ou rt s u s p e n d e d th e d ecla ra tio n o f in v a lid ity for a p e r io d o f 12 m o n th s
an d sta y e d the ch arges a g a in s t M r Parker.

R osen b erg JA n o te d that r e fu s in g to read in an e x e m p tio n re sp e c te d the d ifferen t

roles o f the co u rts an d th e leg isla tu re. H is H o n o u r b e lie v e d an e x e m p tio n w ith
a d e q u a te g u id e lin e s c o u ld b e e sta b lis h e d b u t th at th is w a s b e st a c h ie v e d b y
P arliam en t. P a rlia m en t w o u ld also b e ab le to co n sid e r m ore c o m p le x situ a tio n s, su c h
as w h e r e a p e r so n req u ires a caregiver to g r o w m arijuana.

G o v ern m en t resp o n se
The C an ad ian G o v ern m en t resp o n d e d to th e C ourt o f A p p e a l d e c is io n by p a ssin g n e w
regu lation s for p atien ts a n d caregivers to g ro w and u se m arijuana. The regu lation s
V o lu m e 7 (2 ) C a s e n o te s 87

cam e in to effect on 31 July 2001 in order to m eet the d e a d lin e im p o se d by the C ou rt o f

A p p ea l. U n d er the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations 2001, p atien ts can a p p ly for
au th o risa tio n s to p o s s e s s m arijuana in three categories, d e fin e d accord in g to the
p atien t's sy m p to m s a n d p ro g n o sis. T he R egu lation s are in te n d e d o n ly to p r o v id e
access to m arijuana in sp ecia l m ed ical circum stan ces, as it is still co n sid ered that there
is a lack o f clear e v id e n c e of th e m ed ica l b en efits o f m arijuana.

C ategory 1 is for p a tie n ts w ith term inal illn e sse s w h o h a v e a p r o g n o sis o f d eath w ith in
12 m o n th s. C ategory 2 is for p atien ts w h o suffer from sp e c ific sy m p to m s a sso cia ted
w ith so m e serio u s m e d ic a l c o n d itio n s. C ategory 3 is for p a tien ts w h o h a v e sy m p to m s
a sso cia ted w ith m ed ica l c o n d itio n s oth er than th ose in the o th er tw o categories.

It is m o st lik ely that a u th orisation s w ill b e granted to p e o p le w ith particular co n d itio n s

for w h ic h there h as b e e n an accep tan ce o f the m ed ical b en efits o f m arijuana. Like the
Parker ju d g m en t, the R eg u la tio n s refer to sp ecific co n d itio n s w h ere sm o k in g m arijuana
h as b een co n sid ered to h a v e m ed ica l b en efit — n au sea an d v o m itin g from cancer and
A ID S treatm ents, w a stin g sy n d ro m e for p e o p le w ith cancer or A ID S, p a in s and sp a sm s
related to m u ltip le sclerosis an d the control of seizu res for p e o p le w ith ep ilep sy .11

T he R e g u la tio n s a lso a llo w p o s s e s s io n o f a m o u n ts to b e p rescrib ed b y the p e r so n 's

treatin g d octor. C u ltiv a tio n is r e g u la te d b y licen sin g , an d th £ lic e n c e a p p lic a tio n w ill
take in to a cco u n t th e a m o u n t n e e d e d to b e g r o w n for the p a tie n t's d o sa g e .

T he C a n a d ia n G o v e r n m e n t h a s a lso con tracted w ith a p riv a te co m p a n y for th e

c u ltiv a tio n o f a relia b le so u rce o f afford ab le, quality, s ta n d a r d ise d m arijuana for
m e d ic a l a n d research p u r p o se s.

T he r ig h t to h a v e a c c e ss to ap p ro p ria te and e ffe c tiv e m e d ic a l treatm en t is clearly

sta te d in the Parker d e c is io n . A u str a lia n s w ith d is a b ilitie s w h o u se or require
m ariju an a for m e d ic a l u s e are n o le ss e n title d to th is p ro tectio n . H o w e v e r , A u stra lia n
la w s d o n o t p r o v id e th e sa m e co n stitu tio n a l sa feg u a rd o f in d iv id u a l rights as th e
C a n a d ia n Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For th is reason , th e r e c o m m e n d a tio n s m a d e
by th e N S W W ork in g P arty o n th e U s e o f C a n n a b is for M e d ic a l P u r p o se s m u s t be
s e r io u s ly c o n sid e r e d a n d a d o p te d . •

11 It should be noted that the NSW Working Party on the Use of Cannabis for Medical Purposes supports
the use of medical marijuana in slightly different situations. The Working Party specifically refers to a
broad range of neurological disorders (including multiple sclerosis), general pain management and do
not refer specifically to epilepsy.
88 A u s tr a lia n Jo u rn a l o f H u m a n R ig h ts 2001

D om estic cases
R v Morgentaler (1988) 1 SCR 30
Regina v Parker (cited as R v Parker) (1997) 12 CR (5th) 251 (Ont Prov Div)
Regina v Parker (cited as R v Parker) (2000) 188 DLR (4th) 385

D om estic leg islatio n

Narcotic Control Act 1985 (RSC, c N-l)
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 1996 (SC, c l9)
Regulations Exempting Certain Precursors and Controlled Substances from the Application
of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 1997 (PC 627)

In tern atio n al legal m aterial

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, opened for signature 30 March 1961, 520 UNTS
151 (entered into force 13 December 1964)

Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, opened for signature
25 March 1972, 976 UNTS 3 and 105 (entered into force 8 August 1975)

Convention on Psychotropic Substances, opened for signature 21 February 1971, 1019

UNTS 175 (entered into force 16 August 1976)

United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances, opened for signature 20 December 1988, 1696 UNTS 449 (entered into
force 11 November 1990)

R eferences
Working Party on Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes (NSW) Final Report 2000

Grinspoon L, Bakalar J Marihuana: the forbidden medicine Yale University Press,

London 1997

Zimmer L and Morgan J Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts: a review of the scientific
evidence Lindesmith Center, New York 1997