[2012] 2 F.C.R. D-1
Constitutional Law
Charter of Rights
Fundamental Freedoms
Judicial review of Minister of Health’s refusal to issue statutory exemption permitting applicant to produce, possess enough marihuana to smoke seven grams thereof per day without violating Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), S.C. 1996, c. 19, ss. 4, 7—Applicant using marihuana for religious reasons, claiming refusal breaching rights under Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], ss. 2, 7, 15—Principal issue whether applicant establishing breach of Charter, ss. 2(a), 7, 15—Right to freedom of religion under Charter, s. 2(a) not breached since applicant failing to show that practice of consuming seven grams of marihuana per day having any nexus with religion—Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47, [2004] 2 SCR 351 holding that courts need not accept that practice considered religious just because claimant saying so—Only beliefs, convictions, practices rooted in religion protected by guarantee of freedom of religion—Applicant’s s. 7 Charter rights also not breached—While threat of imprisonment engaging applicant’s liberty interests, doing so in manner consistent with principles of fundamental justice—Impugned prohibitions in CDSA perfectly reasonable, rationally connected to goal of reducing harms to individual health, society flowing from illicit use of marihuana—Therefore, CDSA’s prohibition on possession consistent with principles of fundamental justice—Applicant’s equality rights under Charter, s. 15 not breached since CDSA not making distinction on basis of religion, not perpetuating prejudice or stereotyping—While CDSA, ss. 4, 7 violating Charter right, violation saved under Charter, s. 1 since limit reasonably tailored to Parliament’s pressing, substantial goal; reasonably justifiable given provisions’ salutary benefits—Application dismissed.
Bennett v. Canada (Attorney General) (T-1073-09, 2011 FC 1310, Shore J., judgment dated November 15, 2011, pp. 53.)