Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:37:10.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Charter Rights of Canadian Drug Users: A Constitutional Assessment of the Clay Trial and Ruling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Andrew D. Hathaway
Andrew D. Hathaway
Affiliation:
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell Street, Toronto (Ontario)Canada M5S 2S1, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 75 years of cannabis prohibition in Canada, the latter third have been marked by considerable debate as to the propriety of invoking a criminal response to behaviour that is so prevalent and widely tolerated. The movement for reform of the laws prohibiting simple possession and use of the drug has intensified in recent years. Pragmatic adaptations on the part of Canadian legal institutions, aimed at mitigating the social and personal consequences of enforcing these sanctions, are applied routinely though selectively today. Nonetheless, actual policy reform seems far from inevitable, despite the increasing endorsement of factual evidence and widespread support for decriminalization. Given the legal-political impasse characterizing the cannabis controversy today, this paper examines the grounds on which prohibition may be viably opposed on the basis of respect for human rights. These moral grounds and remaining obstacles to legal reform are developed in view of the key contested arguments in R. v. Clay (1997), a landmark constitutional challenge as to the designation of cannabis as a prohibited substance in Canada.

Résumé

La prohibition du cannabis au Canada remonte à 75 ans, et les dernières 25 années ont été marquées par un débat houleux sur la pertinence des sanctions pénales qu'entraîne un comportement si courant et si généralement toléré. Le mouvement en faveur de la décriminalisation de la simple possession et de l'usage récréatif de la marijuana prend de l'ampleur depuis quelques années. Pour atténuer les répercussions sociales et personnelles que peut avoir l'application de ces sanctions, les institutions juridiques canadiennes ont adopté des mesures pragmatiques qu'elles appliquent régulièrement mais de façon sélective. Il n'en demeure pas moins qu'une réforme des politiques est loin d'être assurée malgré des preuves tangibles de plus en plus nombreuses de son bien-fondé et le vaste soutien accordé à la décriminalisation. Étant donné l'impasse politico-juridique où se trouve actuellement la controverse entourant le cannabis, cet article examine les raisons qui pourraient être invoquées pour justifier une opposition à la prohibition en se fondant sur le respect des droits de la personne. Ces motifs moraux et les derniers obstacles à la réforme juridique sont dégagés en tenant compte des principaux arguments contestés dans l'affaire R. c. Clay (1997), qui a créé un précédent en contestant la constitutionnalité de l'interdiction du cannabis au Canada.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , April 2001 , pp. 29 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Richards, D.A.J., Sex, Drugs, Death and the Law: An Essay on Human Rights and Overcriminalization (Totawa N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1982).Google Scholar

2 R. v. Clay (1997), 9 C.R. (5th) 349 (Ont. Gen. Div.), [hereinafter Clay].

3 The research is described in Hathaway, Andrew D., Harm Reduction, Human Rights, and Canada's Cannabis Controversy (Ph.D. Thesis, McMaster University 1999)Google Scholar [unpublished].

4 Mill, J.S., On Liberty (London: W. Scott Pub. Co., 1901)Google Scholar; Utilitarianism (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1901).

5 Richards, supra note 1.

6 See Hart, H.L.A., Law, Liberty and Morality (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Devlin, P., The Enforcement of Morals (London: Oxford University Press, 1965).Google Scholar

7 Canada, Cannabis: A Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-medical Use of Drugs (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1972) (ChairDain, G. Le).Google Scholar

8 Le Dain, ibid. at 281–283.

9 Hart, supra note 6.

10 Devlin, supra note 6. Lord Devlin is best known for his pronouncements opposing reform of the laws against homosexuality and prostitution in Britain.

11 Le Dain, supra note 7 at 312.

12 Erickson, P.G., “Neglected and Rejected: A Case Study of the Impact of Social Research on Canadian Drag Policy” (1998) 23 Canadian Journal of Sociology 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Beauchesne, L., “Social Morality and the Civil Rights of Canadian Drug Users” (1991) 21:1Journal of Drug Issues 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Ibid.

15 Mitchell, C.N., The Drug Solution (Carleton University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

16 Mitchell, C.N., “A Justice-based Argument for the Uniform Regulation of Psychoactive Drugs” in Blackwell, J.C. & Erickson, P.G., eds., Illicit Drugs in Canada: A Risky Business (Toronto: Nelson, 1988) 407.Google Scholar According to Mitchell, if we are to accept the empirical evidence as to the actual harms posed by illicit as opposed to presently accepted drug solutions, fairness demands that all psychoactives be treated equally. Whereas equality itself does not determine what system of control should be applied, nor that all drug users should be treated identically, all would be subject to the same general controls. Thus it would be just as ‘fair’ if the criminal law were to prohibit all such drug use on penalty of death as it would if no drugs were prohibited. Whatever the exact outcome of attempts to reschedule drugs and controls uniformly based on proportionality and fairness, Mitchell suggests it would force individuals and legislators to include their own drug use and abuse in their political calculations.

17 Mitchell, supra note 15. Again, Mitchell reminds us that new rights, as in civil rights for women, homosexuals, and racial minorities, for example, are normally rejected as peculiar or frightening to begin with. Unlike racial or sexual characteristics, however, drug use is discretionary. A better fitting comparison to drug use may be found in our individual freedom of choice of religion and politics. In a heterogeneous society, notes Mitchell, the necessary preventative to civil war is religious and political freedom.

18 Wong, D.B., Moral Relativity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).Google Scholar

19 S. 7, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c.11 [hereinafter, the Charter].

20 Mitchell, supra note 16.

21 Ibid. at 424.

22 Blackwell, J.C. & Erickson, P.G., eds., Illicit Drugs in Canada: A Risky Business (Toronto: Nelson, 1988).Google Scholar

23 Ibid.

24 R. Solomon, “The Noble Pursuit of Evil: Arrest, Search, and Seizure in Canadian Drug Law” in Blackwell & Erickson, ibid., 263.

25 See Wong, supra note 18, for a comprehensive discussion of morally defensible, yet essentially contested, positions on opposing sides of the abortion issue.

26 Author's interview with Robert Solomon (March 31, 1998).

27 Author's interview with Alan Young (March 18, 1998).

28 Clay, supra note 2.

29 Iorfida v. Maclntyre (1994), 21 O.R. (3d) 186.

30 The Charter, supra note 19.

31 Clay, supra note 2 at 353.

32 Ibid. at 361.

33 Ibid. at 357.

34 Ibid. at 370.

35 Section 52 of the 1982 Charter states any law inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is “… to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force and effect.” Judges are thereby invested with the power to measure any law against broadly worded rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. While there are those who welcome the new powers bestowed on superior courts as an essential safeguard of democracy in Canada, others decry the growth of “judicial activism” by unelected judges as threatening to Parliament and due legislative process (Bindman, S., “Unelected Judges: Should They Make the Law?” Hamilton Spectator (January 10, 1998; C1Google Scholar). As made clear in his ruling in R. v. Clay, Justice McCart is unequivocally of the latter point of view.

36 Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1993), 85 C.C.C. (3d) 15 at 78 (S.C.C.) per Sopinka J.

37 Vriend v. Alberta (1996), 132 D.L.R. (4th) 595 at 606–607 (Alta. CA.). McClung's scathing critique of judicial activism was delivered as part of a judgement to overturn a lower court decision using the Charter to add sexual orientation to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in Alberta's Individual Rights Protection Act. The 1996 ruling was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (see Bindman, supra note 35).

38 Rodriguez, supra note 36.

39 Clay, supra note 2 at 367.

40 Ibid. at 369.

41 For example, Ravin vs. Alaska (1975), 537 P.2d 494 (U.S. Alaska S.C.); R. v. Cholette (1993), Doc. Victoria 64964 (B.C.S.C); and R. v. Hamon (1993), 85 C.C.C. (3d) 490 (C.A.Q.). See also, Cunningham v. Canada (1993), 80 C.C.C. (3d) 492 (S.C.C.); Norml vs. Griffen Bell et al., 488 F. Supp. 123 (1980); and Norml vs. Gain et al., 161 Cal. Rpt. 181 (1979).

42 Ravin vs. Alaska, ibid, at 502.

43 In closing arguments, McCart notes that new provisions for “alternative measures” other than judicial proceedings in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act suggest “… Parliament is moving away from the harshness of the penalties for possession of marijuana …” Perhaps some day, he continues, they may adopt some of the decriminalization measures currently practised in Australia and some western European nations, “… which I do not believe would meet with much objection from an informed public.” Clay, supra note 2 at 372.

44 See Devlin, supra note 6.

45 Author's interview with Alan Young (March 18, 1998).

46 R. v. Clay (2000), 37 C.R. (5th) 170 (Ont. CA.). The Clay appeal ruling was offset by a concurrent decision by the same court concerning the medical use of marijuana: R. v. Parker (2000), 37 C.R. (5th) 97 (Ont. CA.). In the latter case, the Crown appeal of the stay of proceedings granted by the lower court [R. v. Parker (1997), 12 C.R. (5th) 251 (Ont. Prov. Div.)] was dismissed on the grounds that the marijuana prohibition deprived Parker of his right to liberty and security of the person in a manner that does not accord with the principles of fundamental justice. For present purposes, the Parker decision is noteworthy insofar as it upheld his right to self-medicate with marijuana as a treatment for epilepsy though the evidence to date remains equivocal as to the drug's efficacy in treating the condition. Thus (contrary to the call for further research to assess marijuana's harms in wider recreational use), limited medicinal use is gaining acceptance in the courts by way of evidence that still falls short of meeting strictly objective or clinical standards of ‘proof.’

47 R. v. Clay (2000) ibid. at 184.

48 R. v. Malmo-Levine, (2000) B.C.J No. 1095.

49 Clay, supra note 47 at 184.

50 Ibid., at 184.

51 Harcourt, B.E., “The Collapse of the Harm Principle” (2000) 90: 1Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 Ibid. at 183, italics in original.

53 Best, J., “Rhetoric in Claims-Making: Constructing the Missing Children Problem” (1987) 34: 2Social Problems 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 Richards, supra note 1.

55 Wong, supra note 18.

56 Shotter, J., Cultural Politics of Everyday Life (University of Toronto Press, 1993).Google Scholar

57 Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.A., Swidler, A. & Tipton, S.M., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).Google Scholar

58 Gallic, W.B. “Essentially Contested Concepts” in Black, M., ed., The Importance of Language (N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962).Google Scholar

59 Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. Henderson, A.M. & Parsons, T. (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1956).Google Scholar

60 Starr, J., Cultural Politics: Radical Movements in Modern History (New York: Praeger, 1985).Google Scholar