Date: 20030905
Docket: A-470-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 327
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
J.J. MARC PAQUETTE
Appellant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Hearing held at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 3, 2003.
Judgment rendered at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 5, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: RICHARD C.J.
NOËL J.A.
Date: 20030905
Docket: A-470-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 327
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
J.J. MARC PAQUETTE
Appellant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] I consider that Beaudry J. made no error when he concluded that the issue in the case at bar has become moot.
[2] The appellant, who is suffering from serious illnesses, was granted an exemption on March 12, 2001, valid for a period of six months, from application of sections 4 and 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ("the Act"), S.C. 1996, c. 19. This exemption, issued by the Minister of Health and Welfare pursuant to section 56 of the Act and accompanied by six conditions, allowed him to have, produce and grow cannabis for medical purposes and for his personal use.
[3] The appellant challenged this ministerial decision and its conditions by judicial review, in particular the condition setting the quantity of cannabis he was authorized to produce and have in his possession. On June 12, 2001, the Minister replaced the exemption of March 12, 2001, by a new exemption expiring on September 11, 2001. By that new exemption the appellant obtained, as requested, an increase in the cannabis quantities. Since that time, the completely discretionary power of section 56 of the Act (see R. v. Parker, 49 O.R. (3d) 481 (O.C.A.)), has been embodied in the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations ("the Regulations"), SOR/2001-227, June 14, 2001. It is these Regulations that are now the legal basis for granting exemptions on medical grounds. As the exemption of March 12, 2001, ceased to have effect and the disputed conditions have been changed, the issue has unquestionably become moot.
[4] I cannot see any public interest in extending the proceeding initiated by the appellant and rendering a decision upon it. The conditions to which the exemption was subject, and the validity of which was at issue, were special conditions, namely conditions specific to the appellant and dictated by his state of health as assessed by physicians.
[5] Further, the validity of the Regulations that replaced the Minister's discretion under section 56 of the Act has been successfully challenged in the Ontario Superior Court and the case is now under advisement in the Court of Appeal of that province: Hitzig v. Her Majesty the Queen and Parker v. Her Majesty the Queen, 02CV-230401 CMI, 02CV-226629 CMI, January 9, 2003. This new legal and judicial situation affecting the new system for granting exemptions reinforces my belief that there is no real public interest in deciding an issue involving an exemption which is both obsolete and based on an outdated legal foundation.
[6] In these circumstances, returning the case to the Trial Division (now the Federal Court of Canada) for it to decide the outdated point at issue would hardly be a judicious use of limited judicial resources. I would dismiss the appeal without costs.
|
|
"Gilles Létourneau"
J.A. |
"I concur.
J. Richard C.J."
"I concur.
Marc Noël J.A."
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: A-470-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: J.J. Marc Paquette and A.G.C.
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: September 3, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Létourneau J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Richard C.J.
Noël J.A.
DATE OF REASONS: September 5, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Marc Paquette FOR HIMSELF
Alain Préfontaine FOR THE RESPONDENT
Catherine A. Lawrence
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Marc Paquette FOR HIMSELF
Hawkesbury, Ontario
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario