Search Results for: Malmo-Levine

Supreme Court Hearings

Constitutionality of Marijuana Laws – May 6, 2003 (Part 1 of 4)

On May 6, 2003, the court hears arguments in case #28026, David Malmo-Levine v. The Queen; case #28148, Victor Eugene Caine v. The Queen; and case #28189, Christopher James Clay v. The Queen. All three cases concern the constitutionality of Canada’s laws on marijuana. The cases ask the court to decide whether Parliament has the legislative authority to criminalize simple possession of marijuana and, if so, whether that power has been exercised in a manner contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The claims of Mr. Malmo-Levine and Mr. Caine were rejected by the British Columbia Court of Appeal; the claim of Christopher James Clay was rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Those decisions are now being appealed to the Supreme Court. Lawyer Paul Burstein presents arguments on behalf of Christopher James Clay and responds to questions from the justices.

Legal Talk

Marijuana Decriminalization / Internet Law

Host Tasha Kheiriddin is joined by Eugene Oscapella (a founding member of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy) and David Griffin (CEO of the Canadian Police Association), who discuss Canada’s marijuana laws. Excerpts are shown of marijuana activist David Malmo-Levine, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, NDP social policy critic Libby Davies, and Canadian Alliance justice critic Randy White commenting on the decriminalization of marijuana. Later, Tasha speaks with internet legal expert Michael Geist about “cyber law.” Mr. Geist explains some of the challenges for lawmakers, who must track changing technology, internet regulation, and legislation.

Supreme Court Hearings

Constitutionality of Marijuana Laws – May 6, 2003 (Part 4 of 4)

On May 6, 2003, the court hears arguments in case #28026, David Malmo-Levine v. The Queen; case #28148, Victor Eugene Caine v. The Queen; and case #28189, Christopher James Clay v. The Queen. All three cases concern the constitutionality of Canada’s laws on marijuana. The cases ask the court to decide whether Parliament has the legislative authority to criminalize simple possession of marijuana and, if so, whether that power has been exercised in a manner contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The claims of Mr. Malmo-Levine and Mr. Caine were rejected by the British Columbia Court of Appeal; the claim of Christopher James Clay was rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Those decisions are now being appealed to the Supreme Court. Lawyer S. David Frankel presents arguments on behalf of the Crown and responds to questions from the justices. David Malmo-Levine speaks on his own behalf before the court. Lawyer John W. Conroy presents arguments on behalf of Victor Eugene Caine. Lawyer Paul Burstein presents arguments on behalf of Christopher James Clay.

Supreme Court Hearings

Constitutionality of Marijuana Laws – May 6, 2003 (Part 2 of 4)

On May 6, 2003, the court hears arguments in case #28026, David Malmo-Levine v. The Queen; case #28148, Victor Eugene Caine v. The Queen; and case #28189, Christopher James Clay v. The Queen. All three cases concern the constitutionality of Canada’s laws on marijuana. The cases ask the court to decide whether Parliament has the legislative authority to criminalize simple possession of marijuana and, if so, whether that power has been exercised in a manner contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The claims of Mr. Malmo-Levine and Mr. Caine were rejected by the British Columbia Court of Appeal; the claim of Christopher James Clay was rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Those decisions are now being appealed to the Supreme Court. David Malmo-Levine speaks on his own behalf before the court. Lawyer John W. Conroy presents arguments on behalf of Victor Eugene Caine.

Supreme Court Hearings

Constitutionality of Marijuana Laws – May 6, 2003 (Part 3 of 4)

On May 6, 2003, the court hears arguments in case #28026, David Malmo-Levine v. The Queen; case #28148, Victor Eugene Caine v. The Queen; and case #28189, Christopher James Clay v. The Queen. All three cases concern the constitutionality of Canada’s laws on marijuana. The cases ask the court to decide whether Parliament has the legislative authority to criminalize simple possession of marijuana and, if so, whether that power has been exercised in a manner contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The claims of Mr. Malmo-Levine and Mr. Caine were rejected by the British Columbia Court of Appeal; the claim of Christopher James Clay was rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Those decisions are now being appealed to the Supreme Court. Lawyer S. David Frankel presents arguments on behalf of the Crown and responds to questions from the justices.