The ban on growing cannabis at home in Quebec is maintained
Quebecers will still not be able to grow cannabis at home. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday: the Quebec government is entitled to prohibit the cultivation of cannabis at home, even if it is authorized by federal law.
Quebec is the only province, along with Manitoba, to have completely banned personal cultivation and possession of pot plants at home. Quebecer Janick Murray-Hall — who became known for his satirical news site Le Journal de Mourréal — challenged the ban, arguing that Quebec had tried to infringe on federal criminal law jurisdiction.
But the Supreme Court of Canada rejected these arguments. The Quebec law, although more restrictive than the federal law, pursues the same objective, which is to discourage the illicit trade in cannabis. And the imposition of fines — deemed "relatively modest" by the court — does not correspond to an attempt by Quebec to interfere in the field of criminal law.
The Quebec law is therefore constitutional, determined the highest court in the country.
"Sections 5 and 10 of the provincial Act are not intended to punish home possession and cultivation as such, but rather to ensure the effectiveness of the state monopoly for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the public against the harms of cannabis," wrote the nine justices under the pen of Chief Justice Richard Wagner. "The public health and safety objectives" of the provincial legislation are therefore, "to a large extent, consistent with the objectives of the federal legislation," the Supreme Court continued.
Mr. Murray-Hall's lawyer, Maxime Guérin, admitted to disappointment with the verdict, he who had turned to the highest court in the country after the Quebec Court of Appeal had first validated the constitutionality of the Quebec law, unlike the Superior Court of Quebec before it.
Me Guérin, however, preferred not to lose hope that the political arena could one day relax the law and allow Quebecers to grow their own plants on their land. "The Coalition Avenir Québec government will not necessarily be the best ally," said the lawyer, recalling that François Legault had raised the legal age of consumption when coming to power. "But there is hope if another party is elected eventually," M said.e Guérin in interview.
Asymmetric legalizationBy legalizing cannabis in Canada in 2018, Justin Trudeau's government authorized in its law the cultivation of a maximum of four plants per dwelling. The Quebec law governing cannabis, adopted the same year, tightened this federal authorization and prohibited all home cultivation. Quebec offenders are liable to fines of $250 to $750.
The judges of the Supreme Court were careful not to rule on these various approaches.
"It is not for the Court to decide which of the two approaches — prohibiting personal production, or tolerating such a practice — is more likely to limit illicit activities related to cannabis," they write. Suffice it to note that it was this same objective that guided the legislative intervention of both levels of government in this case. »
Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette said he was "satisfied" on Twitter with the court's decision, which "confirms Quebec's full capacity to act in this matter."
The Coalition avenir Québec government will not necessarily be the best ally. But there is hope if another party is elected eventually.
— Maxime Guérin
The office of federal Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos reiterated the dual objective of cannabis legalization — protecting the health and safety of Canadians by building a legal industry — and said it was willing to "continue to work with the provinces" to achieve it. Justin Trudeau refused to amend his bill five years ago to explicitly give provinces the latitude to prohibit personal cultivation.
Janick Murray-Hall's case settles the debate in Quebec. But a second case, in Manitoba, where home cultivation is also prohibited, has not yet been decided by the Court of King's Bench.
Murray-Hall's lawyer acknowledges that the "question of principle has been resolved" since the Supreme Court has determined that a province can tighten federal law. A different wording of the Manitoba law, however, could perhaps lead to a different interpretation of the courts, he said. The Attorney General of Manitoba intervened in Mr. Murray-Hall's case before the Supreme Court.
Quebec is the only province, along with Manitoba, to have completely banned personal cultivation and possession of pot plants at home. Quebecer Janick Murray-Hall — who became known for his satirical news site Le Journal de Mourréal — challenged the ban, arguing that Quebec had tried to infringe on federal criminal law jurisdiction.
But the Supreme Court of Canada rejected these arguments. The Quebec law, although more restrictive than the federal law, pursues the same objective, which is to discourage the illicit trade in cannabis. And the imposition of fines — deemed "relatively modest" by the court — does not correspond to an attempt by Quebec to interfere in the field of criminal law.
The Quebec law is therefore constitutional, determined the highest court in the country.
"Sections 5 and 10 of the provincial Act are not intended to punish home possession and cultivation as such, but rather to ensure the effectiveness of the state monopoly for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the public against the harms of cannabis," wrote the nine justices under the pen of Chief Justice Richard Wagner. "The public health and safety objectives" of the provincial legislation are therefore, "to a large extent, consistent with the objectives of the federal legislation," the Supreme Court continued.
Mr. Murray-Hall's lawyer, Maxime Guérin, admitted to disappointment with the verdict, he who had turned to the highest court in the country after the Quebec Court of Appeal had first validated the constitutionality of the Quebec law, unlike the Superior Court of Quebec before it.
Me Guérin, however, preferred not to lose hope that the political arena could one day relax the law and allow Quebecers to grow their own plants on their land. "The Coalition Avenir Québec government will not necessarily be the best ally," said the lawyer, recalling that François Legault had raised the legal age of consumption when coming to power. "But there is hope if another party is elected eventually," M said.e Guérin in interview.
Asymmetric legalizationBy legalizing cannabis in Canada in 2018, Justin Trudeau's government authorized in its law the cultivation of a maximum of four plants per dwelling. The Quebec law governing cannabis, adopted the same year, tightened this federal authorization and prohibited all home cultivation. Quebec offenders are liable to fines of $250 to $750.
The judges of the Supreme Court were careful not to rule on these various approaches.
"It is not for the Court to decide which of the two approaches — prohibiting personal production, or tolerating such a practice — is more likely to limit illicit activities related to cannabis," they write. Suffice it to note that it was this same objective that guided the legislative intervention of both levels of government in this case. »
Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette said he was "satisfied" on Twitter with the court's decision, which "confirms Quebec's full capacity to act in this matter."
The Coalition avenir Québec government will not necessarily be the best ally. But there is hope if another party is elected eventually.
— Maxime Guérin
The office of federal Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos reiterated the dual objective of cannabis legalization — protecting the health and safety of Canadians by building a legal industry — and said it was willing to "continue to work with the provinces" to achieve it. Justin Trudeau refused to amend his bill five years ago to explicitly give provinces the latitude to prohibit personal cultivation.
Janick Murray-Hall's case settles the debate in Quebec. But a second case, in Manitoba, where home cultivation is also prohibited, has not yet been decided by the Court of King's Bench.
Murray-Hall's lawyer acknowledges that the "question of principle has been resolved" since the Supreme Court has determined that a province can tighten federal law. A different wording of the Manitoba law, however, could perhaps lead to a different interpretation of the courts, he said. The Attorney General of Manitoba intervened in Mr. Murray-Hall's case before the Supreme Court.
