29:
261:
474:
Turning to the second question on appeal, Wagner CJ noted that
Canadian jurisprudence holds that federal paramountcy applies only where there is operational conflict between federal and provincial Acts, or where a federal Act might be frustrated in achieving its purpose. Both parties having conceded
444:
Reviewing extrinsic evidence, such as legislative debates, may help in determining whether provisions are colourable in achieving an improper purpose (such as recriminalizing what
Parliament had decriminalized), but courts should be careful not to " disapproval of either the policy of the statute or
454:
In the classification stage, it was noted that, while these provisions seemingly fulfilled the for falling within the criminal law power, Quebec's choice to secure its monopoly on distribution "to protect the health and security of the public" meant that it also fell within provincial jurisdiction
357:
set aside the judgment, holding that the double aspect doctrine applied, as "the two levels of government are pursuing parallel objectives within their respective fields of jurisdiction". It further held that federal paramountcy did not apply, as decriminalization does not constitute authorization
440:
Reviewing the intrinsic evidence of how the Act was drafted will identify whether the provisions in question were a means to achieving the purpose of the scheme. However, it is not up to the court to determine if the provisions themselves are appropriate. "When two approaches are considered to be
388:
In my view, the pith and substance of the impugned provisions is to ensure the effectiveness of the state monopoly in order to protect the health and security of the public, and of young persons in particular, from cannabis harm. It follows that the prohibitions against the possession of cannabis
428:
The court should begin by characterizing the provisions alone, instead of considering the law as a whole; however, a contextual analysis will be needed when they are part of a regulatory scheme. Reading the provisions being contested in the context of the scheme "is crucial in distinguishing the
478:
The appellant had submitted that the decriminalization of possessing or cultivating a limited number of plants meant that
Parliament had conferred a positive right for people to do so. This was rejected, as the SCC had previously ruled that an exception "only means that a particular practice is
129:
extends to the regulating of the conditions of production, distribution and sale of the substance. The provincial Act’s public health and security objectives and its prohibitions in ss. 5 and 10 are therefore in harmony with the objectives of the federal Act, and there is no basis for finding a
349:
could not be engaged. The province could act to reduce the number of permissible plants to as low as one, as "t is clear that, other than zero plants, the province could have legislated, either for health or for security". It was not necessary to consider the alternative argument.
490:
There was no frustration, as both the federal and provincial Acts had a common purpose. It was not for the court to decide which of their approaches would be more effective in dealing with the matter. Therefore, the Quebec provisions were constitutionally operative.
499:
The ruling was seen as conservative, not deviating from current jurisprudence concerning paramountcy, and the SCC rejected the idea that
Parliament could ever use the criminal law power to create any positive rights. The
292:
312:
passed legislation that created a provincial monopoly on the sale of cannabis, as well as prohibiting the possession of cannabis plants and their cultivation for personal purposes in a dwelling‑house.
402:
He noted that the Court of Appeal made no error in its analysis of their validity, and proceeded to summarize the process in which current constitutional jurisprudence assesses the matter:
466:
As the appellant failed to prove that ss. 5 and 10 did not fall within provincial jurisdiction, they were held to be a valid exercise of the powers conferred on the
National Assembly.
982:
451:
In this case, the purpose of ss. 5 and 10 was "to ensure the effectiveness of the state monopoly in order to protect the health and security of the public from cannabis harm."
345:
At first instance, Lavoie J held that the Quebec provisions were constitutionally invalid, because prohibition fell solely under the criminal law power, and thus the
308:
plants and their cultivation for personal purposes, it exempted the possession and cultivation of no more than four plants from these prohibitions. In response, the
581:
945:
330:
582:
An Act to constitute the Société québécoise du cannabis, to enact the
Cannabis Regulation Act and to amend various highway safety-related provisions
1041:
1026:
113:
The partial decriminalization of cannabis by
Parliament opened the door to provincial legislative action. The regulation of cannabis use has a
1031:
611:
The Safe and
Responsible Retailing of Cannabis Act (Liquor and Gaming Control Act and Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation Act Amended)
397:
pursued by that Act. With a few slight differences, my conclusion at the characterization stage is the same as that of the Court of Appeal.
1000:
366:
In a unanimous ruling, the appeal was dismissed. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs throughout. In beginning his analysis,
568:
1036:
599:
441:
potentially effective, it falls to legislative bodies to choose the one that is most likely to further the intended objectives."
126:
121:
can be used to suppress some evil or injurious or undesirable effect upon the public, while provincial jurisdiction over
734:
An Act to amend the
Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
309:
245:
102:
881:
122:
316:
501:
241:
150:
94:
86:
34:
460:
415:
367:
354:
346:
249:
178:
143:
697:
634:
297:
158:
715:
543:
28:
950:
886:
562:
334:
281:
237:
475:
that the first scenario was not applicable, the analysis went to whether frustration had occurred.
1005:
983:"Quebec's law against home cannabis cultivation constitutional under the division of powers: SCC"
738:
720:
702:
655:
548:
513:
407:
118:
154:
733:
650:
170:
671:
269:
389:
plants and their cultivation at home set out in ss. 5 and 10 of the provincial Act are a
610:
166:
604:
323:(which respectively prohibited the possession and cultivation of cannabis plants) was
1020:
114:
60:
509:
286:
212:
174:
162:
413:
classify them by reference to the heads of power listed in ss. 91 and 92 of the
325:
260:
277:
since 1923, and continued to be controlled as such into the 21st century.
1001:"Supreme Court says Quebec ban on homegrown pot plants is constitutional"
459:. As a result, "his appeal is a textbook case for the application of the
305:
538:
505:
422:
The following principles are followed at the characterization stage:
301:
274:
198:
Brown J did not participate in the final disposition of the judgment.
293:
An Act to amend the
Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances)
259:
406:
characterize the law or provisions, through identifying its
504:
noted that it could also be relevant to substances such as
445:
the means by which the legislation seeks to carry it out".
329:
provincial jurisdiction, as they fell within the federal
97:(3 September 2019) (in French). Leave to appeal granted,
333:, or were alternatively of no effect because of federal
358:(which is beyond the scope of the criminal law power).
202:
189:
184:
134:
109:
77:
69:
59:
49:
42:
21:
585:, L.Q. 2018, c. 19 , of which Part II enacted the
483:prohibited, not that the practice is positively
99:Janick Murray-Hall v. Attorney General of Quebec
839:
837:
386:
54:Janick Murray-Hall v Attorney General of Quebec
560:later legislation on the subject included the
252:in the federal-provincial division of powers.
89:(2 September 2021) (in French), setting aside
8:
946:Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act
370:noted that the appeal raised two questions:
248:, specifically concerning the extent of the
91:Murray Hall c. Procureure générale du Québec
605:The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Act
319:for a declaration that ss. 5 and 10 of the
393:of serving the public health and security
83:Procureur général du Québec c. Murray-Hall
768:QCCS, par. 87; translated at SCC, par. 11
683:
681:
374:Were ss. 5 and 10 constitutionally valid?
273:had been treated as a prohibited drug in
666:
664:
627:
530:
233:Murray‑Hall v Quebec (Attorney General)
105: (10 March 2022). Appeal dismissed.
22:Murray‑Hall v Quebec (Attorney General)
645:
643:
304:. While prohibiting the possession of
18:
544:The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1923
377:Were they constitutionally operative?
7:
537:through its addition, together with
127:matters of a local or private nature
716:Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
635:SCC Case Information - Docket 39906
602:passed similar legislation through
569:Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
14:
608:, CCSM , c. L153 , as enacted by
981:Macnab, Aidan (April 14, 2023).
600:Legislative Assembly of Manitoba
455:under s. 92(13) and (16) of the
27:
1:
1042:Cannabis law reform in Canada
1027:Supreme Court of Canada cases
1032:Canadian federalism case law
795:SCC, par. 17; QCCA, par. 139
43:Hearing: September 15, 2022
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
786:SCC, par. 16; QCCA, par. 93
315:Murray-Hall applied to the
310:National Assembly of Quebec
246:Canadian constitutional law
1058:
1037:2023 in Canadian case law
882:Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG)
207:
197:
139:
123:property and civil rights
26:
317:Superior Court of Quebec
45:Judgment: April 14, 2023
672:Cannabis Regulation Act
637:Supreme Court of Canada
587:Cannabis Regulation Act
502:Canadian Cancer Society
321:Cannabis Regulation Act
242:Supreme Court of Canada
220:Cannabis Regulation Act
151:Andromache Karakatsanis
35:Supreme Court of Canada
943:SCC, par. 90, quoting
879:SCC, par. 53, quoting
461:double aspect doctrine
457:Constitution Act, 1867
416:Constitution Act, 1867
399:
355:Quebec Court of Appeal
347:double aspect doctrine
265:
264:Row of cannabis plants
250:double aspect doctrine
541:, to the Schedule of
487:by the federal law".
437:chosen to achieve it.
298:recreational cannabis
263:
130:conflict of purposes.
698:Narcotic Control Act
563:Narcotic Control Act
520:Notes and references
495:Impact and aftermath
433:of the law from the
362:At the Supreme Court
282:Parliament of Canada
190:Unanimous reasons by
117:, since the federal
240:is a ruling of the
179:Michelle O'Bonsawin
1006:The Globe and Mail
675:, CQLR , c. C-5.3
614:, S.M. 2018, c. 9
408:pith and substance
331:criminal law power
296:, which legalized
266:
119:criminal law power
1009:. April 14, 2023.
470:Whether operative
229:
228:
103:2022 CanLII 16724
1049:
1011:
1010:
997:
991:
990:
978:
972:
969:
963:
960:
954:
941:
935:
932:
926:
923:
917:
914:
908:
905:
899:
896:
890:
877:
871:
868:
862:
859:
853:
850:
844:
841:
832:
829:
823:
820:
814:
811:
805:
802:
796:
793:
787:
784:
778:
775:
769:
766:
760:
757:
751:
748:
742:
730:
724:
712:
706:
694:
688:
685:
676:
668:
659:
647:
638:
632:
615:
596:
590:
578:
572:
558:
552:
535:
341:The courts below
171:Nicholas Kasirer
148:Puisne Justices:
135:Court membership
31:
19:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
999:
998:
994:
987:Canadian Lawyer
980:
979:
975:
970:
966:
961:
957:
953: at par. 38
942:
938:
933:
929:
925:SCC, par. 80–81
924:
920:
915:
911:
907:SCC, par. 67–71
906:
902:
897:
893:
889: at par. 31
878:
874:
869:
865:
860:
856:
851:
847:
842:
835:
830:
826:
821:
817:
812:
808:
803:
799:
794:
790:
785:
781:
776:
772:
767:
763:
758:
754:
749:
745:
731:
727:
713:
709:
705:1960-61, c. 35
695:
691:
686:
679:
669:
662:
648:
641:
633:
629:
624:
619:
618:
597:
593:
579:
575:
559:
555:
536:
532:
527:
522:
497:
472:
410:, and only then
400:
384:
364:
343:
270:Cannabis indica
258:
244:in the area of
225:
146:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1055:
1053:
1045:
1044:
1039:
1034:
1029:
1019:
1018:
1013:
1012:
992:
973:
964:
955:
936:
927:
918:
909:
900:
891:
872:
863:
854:
845:
833:
824:
815:
806:
797:
788:
779:
777:SCC, par. 9–13
770:
761:
752:
743:
725:
707:
689:
677:
660:
639:
626:
625:
623:
620:
617:
616:
591:
573:
553:
529:
528:
526:
523:
521:
518:
496:
493:
471:
468:
449:
448:
447:
446:
442:
438:
420:
419:
411:
385:
383:
380:
379:
378:
375:
363:
360:
342:
339:
257:
254:
227:
226:
224:
223:
217:
208:
205:
204:
200:
199:
195:
194:
191:
187:
186:
182:
181:
167:Sheilah Martin
144:Richard Wagner
141:Chief Justice:
137:
136:
132:
131:
111:
107:
106:
95:2019 QCCS 3664
87:2021 QCCA 1325
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1054:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1035:
1033:
1030:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1022:
1008:
1007:
1002:
996:
993:
988:
984:
977:
974:
971:SCC, par. 104
968:
965:
962:SCC, par. 103
959:
956:
952:
948:
947:
940:
937:
931:
928:
922:
919:
913:
910:
904:
901:
895:
892:
888:
884:
883:
876:
873:
867:
864:
858:
855:
849:
846:
840:
838:
834:
828:
825:
819:
816:
813:SCC, par. 106
810:
807:
804:SCC, par. 105
801:
798:
792:
789:
783:
780:
774:
771:
765:
762:
756:
753:
747:
744:
740:
736:
735:
729:
726:
722:
718:
717:
711:
708:
704:
700:
699:
693:
690:
684:
682:
678:
674:
673:
667:
665:
661:
657:
653:
652:
646:
644:
640:
636:
631:
628:
621:
613:
612:
607:
606:
601:
595:
592:
588:
584:
583:
577:
574:
571:
570:
565:
564:
557:
554:
550:
546:
545:
540:
534:
531:
524:
519:
517:
515:
511:
507:
503:
494:
492:
488:
486:
482:
476:
469:
467:
464:
462:
458:
452:
443:
439:
436:
432:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
418:
417:
412:
409:
405:
404:
403:
398:
396:
392:
381:
376:
373:
372:
371:
369:
361:
359:
356:
351:
348:
340:
338:
336:
332:
328:
327:
322:
318:
313:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
294:
289:
288:
283:
280:In 2018, the
278:
276:
272:
271:
262:
255:
253:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
234:
221:
218:
215:
214:
210:
209:
206:
201:
196:
192:
188:
185:Reasons given
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
159:Russell Brown
156:
152:
149:
145:
142:
138:
133:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:double aspect
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
78:Prior history
76:
72:
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
1004:
995:
986:
976:
967:
958:
944:
939:
934:SCC, par. 87
930:
921:
916:SCC, par. 77
912:
903:
898:SCC, par. 60
894:
880:
875:
870:SCC, par. 54
866:
861:SCC, par. 44
857:
852:SCC, par. 33
848:
843:SCC, par. 22
831:SCC, par. 20
827:
822:SCC, par. 18
818:
809:
800:
791:
782:
773:
764:
755:
746:
741:2018, c. 21
732:
728:
723:1996, c. 19
714:
710:
696:
692:
670:
658:2018, c. 16
651:Cannabis Act
649:
630:
609:
603:
594:
586:
580:
576:
567:
561:
556:
551:1923, c. 22
542:
533:
510:e-cigarettes
498:
489:
484:
480:
477:
473:
465:
456:
453:
450:
434:
430:
421:
414:
401:
394:
390:
387:
365:
352:
344:
324:
320:
314:
291:
287:Cannabis Act
285:
279:
268:
267:
232:
231:
230:
219:
213:Cannabis Act
211:
203:Laws applied
175:Mahmud Jamal
163:Malcolm Rowe
155:Suzanne Côté
147:
140:
98:
90:
82:
81:APPEAL from
53:
33:
951:2010 SCC 61
887:2015 SCC 14
759:SCC, par. 8
750:SCC, par. 7
687:SCC, par. 3
335:paramountcy
326:ultra vires
284:passed the
238:2023 SCC 10
65:2023 SCC 10
1021:Categories
622:References
395:objectives
256:Background
70:Docket No.
368:Wagner CJ
193:Wagner CJ
61:Citations
566:and the
382:Validity
306:cannabis
222:(Quebec)
216:(Canada)
949:,
885:,
539:hashish
514:alcohol
506:tobacco
485:allowed
431:purpose
300:use in
236:,
101:,
302:Canada
275:Canada
110:Ruling
73:39906
525:Notes
435:means
391:means
739:S.C.
721:S.C.
703:S.C.
656:S.C.
598:the
549:S.C.
512:and
353:The
290:and
125:and
481:not
463:."
1023::
1003:.
985:.
836:^
737:,
719:,
701:,
680:^
663:^
654:,
642:^
547:,
516:.
508:,
337:.
177:,
173:,
169:,
165:,
161:,
157:,
153:,
93:,
85:,
989:.
589:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
