BC SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON VALIDITY OF MARIJUANA LAWS

VANCOUVER — Have the laws against marijuana already fallen? In a motion filed in BC Supreme Court and now confirmed for the entire day of March 3rd, Michele Kubby will ask the court a simple question: “On what authority can any court in Canada enact a law so as to replace a law that has officially been declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect?” Mrs. Kubby is arguing that the Canadian government has already agreed in Parker and other cases that the laws against cannabis have fallen, but insists that the new medical cannabis regulations “fix” the unconstitutional laws against cannabis. In fact, the Crown has dismissed over 4000 cases as a result of the Parker decision. Mrs. Kubby asserts that in the absence of a valid law prohibiting the possession of marihuana, the various “fixes” of the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations promulgated in 2001-2003 & 2004 are null, void and without underpinning.

Be there to support Michelle Kubby 9:30 am, March 3rd, at the BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe St. in Vancouver. (The court room will be asigned on the day of the Hearing.)
RELEASE DATE:
Wednesday, March 2, 2005

CONTACT:
Michele Kubby, Plaintiff, (250) 578-8422
Maria Molloy, Crown Council (604) 775-7499

LOCATION:
BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe St. in Vancouver, 9:30 AM.

BC SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON VALIDITY OF MARIJUANA LAWS

VANCOUVER — Have the laws against marijuana already fallen? In a motion filed in BC Supreme Court and now confirmed for the entire day of March 3rd, Michele Kubby will ask the court a simple question: “On what authority can any court in Canada enact a law so as to replace a law that has officially been declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect?”

According to documents filed with her motion, Mrs. Kubby is arguing that the Canadian government has already agreed in Parker and other cases that the laws against cannabis have fallen, but insists that the new medical cannabis regulations “fix” the unconstitutional laws against cannabis. In fact, the Crown has dismissed over 4000 cases as a result of the Parker decision. Mrs. Kubby asserts that in the absence of a valid law prohibiting the possession of marihuana, the various “fixes” of the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations promulgated in 2001-2003 & 2004 are null, void and without underpinning.

Mrs. Kubby is asking the court to rule that the court does not have the power to re-enact a dead law. It is contended that the law in question was repealed by virtue of the Interpretation Act, section 2 (2) and that once repealed any replacement was within the exclusive power and jurisdiction of Parliament. Thus, Canada, since the time of repeal is without a law prohibiting marihuana possession.

Mrs. Kubby will also present to the court an issue of first impression which will require the Court to rule for the first time, whether the Constitution Act (1982) section 52, precludes all Courts from suspending declarations of unconstitutionality when courts have determined that a given law violates Charter Rights and/or Freedoms. It is Mrs. Kubby’s contention that such a suspension allows enforcement of an unconstitutional law contrary to the mandate of section 52 and has the effect of nullifying and/or amending Charter of Rights and Freedoms Secion 24 (1).

“We not only have the actual statements by judges that Canada’s cannabis laws have fallen, we have a motion to force the BC Supreme Court to compel the Court to officially recognize that the all the laws against cannabis, including trafficking, have fallen and that marijuana is no longer a part of the Canadian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,” argued Mrs. Kubby.

“The government of Canada certainly knows the score. So far, over 4,000 Canadians who can afford to do so have disputed their pot charges, including trafficking. These fortunate few have all had their cases DISMISSED . Thousands upon thousands have succumbed because of lack of funds to fight the Crown’s knowingly unlawfully instituted charges,” Mrs. Kubby said.

“We are not asking for a new ruling, just a clarification of what has already happened. We believe the criminal justice system and the courts have usurped Charter s. 33 (1) and refuse to comply with the Constitution Act 1982 s. 52 (1), choosing instead to write and follow purported and pretended judicial enactments and the obiter dicta of judgments such as the Ontario Court of Appeal in Hitzig et al (2003) which has no real legal standing,” charged Mrs. Kubby.

The hearing is scheduled to begin at 9:30 at the BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe St. in Vancouver. An entire day has been set aside to hear this matter of national importance. The actual hearing room will not be assigned until the day of the hearing.

###

Comments