by Jason Tarnow | Jun 16, 2015 | Crime, Police
In a ground-breaking 7-0 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that to restrict medical cannabis users to consuming cannabis only in “dried” form, is against theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Specifically, it violates a person’s right and liberty “in a manner that is arbitrary and hence is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
The legislation regulating marijuana is contained within the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Section 4 and Section 5 which prohibited the possession or sale of anything other than “dried cannabis” are now of no effect.
This comes as a great victory for marijuana advocates across Canada – and in particular, to Owen Smith, whose personal dilemma sparked the need for change within the legislation.
Medical marijuana users are now free to medicate in whichever way they find most beneficial, whether it be to feast on edibles (cookies, chocolate, brownies, etc – you can incorporate THC into almost anything!) vape (similar to smoking, but with a much less harsh effect on a person’s respiratory system), dab, etc. There are creams that contain THC that provide great relief to people with painful, chronic physical conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.
Not everyone is as thrilled as Owen Smith – Health Minister Rona Ambrose expressed outrage at the High Court’s ruling, stating the following:
“Let’s remember, there’s only one authority in Canada that has the authority and the expertise to make a drug into a medicine and that’s Health Canada,”
“Marijuana has never gone through the regulatory approval process at Health Canada, which of course, requires a rigorous safety review and clinical trials with scientific evidence.”
While Ms. Ambrose declared that the Federal Government will fight against the normalization of marijuana, it appears that for now, they’re in the weeds.
Heres a link to a new’s story done by Global News
The Cannabis Crusade continues, check back soon for more!
by Jason Tarnow | Jun 2, 2015 | Crime
In April 2008, the town of Merritt, B.C. was cast under a dark shadow when Allan Schoenborn murdered his 3 young children inside their family home while in the midst of a psychotic break.
After a 3 month Jury Trial in Kamloops, B.C., Schoenborn was found to be Not Criminally Responsible (“NCR”) for the 3 murders. (Link to original story) Since the time of his arrest he has remained at a Forensic Psychiatric facility in Coquitlam, B.C, and is monitored by the Forensic Psychiatrics Services Commission.
Just recently, however, he appeared in front of the B.C. Review Board (link for more info) and was granted escorted access into the community. Mr. Schoenborn must abide by a strict set of conditions when he is in the community, including abstaining from the use of drugs and alcohol, no access to any sort of weapon, no contact with a number of different individuals, consent to urine analysis testing whenever it is requested of him, and he must keep the peace and be on good behavior.
The decision of the B.C. Review Board is not one that was met without criticism – in fact, the overall response is a negative one. Citizens are concerned for the safety of the general public, and with Mr. Schoenborn’s well documented criminal history, it is difficult to sway the public’s collective opinion. The Mayor of Coquitlam, Greg Moore, has stated that he will urge council to have the Board re-evaluate their decision.
The problem that we are faced with here is one that turns its ugly head every time a prolific or well-known offender is afforded the privilege of re-joining society. While concerns will inevitably be raised, people must understand that a qualified, experienced and well-advised B.C. Supreme Court Judge made the determination that the Accused was NCR due to a mental disorder. The subsequent developments in his case, for example the most recent decision to allow him escorted visits into the community, come in response to the progress Schoenborn has made over the past several years.
It is important to note that determinations of NCR for homicide charges are not commonplace within the Canadian Judicial System. In fact, over the span of 2005 – 2012, there were only 13 homicide cases before the Courts where a Judge determined that the Accused was Not Criminally Responsible. This statistic serves to prove that these decisions are not made in haste. They are reserved for cases where an Accused person, by way of mental disease or disorder, does not possess the culpability or rationale to be held accountable for their actions. Once under the care of qualified doctors and mental health professionals, and aided by the appropriate medications, it would seem only natural that the offender would begin to improve. That is, after all, the point of having a person committed to a Psychiatric Facility – by stripping them of their rights and freedoms, we undertake the responsibility of developing a collaborative plan to treat their illness.
No one is handing Mr. Schoenborn a get-out-of-jail-free card. He is maneuvering his way through a system that is intended to identify, diagnose, educate, treat, and heal. A system that is designed to protect us – from each other, and when necessary, from ourselves.
by Jason Tarnow | May 5, 2015 | Crime, Police
Ian Pumphrey, who was acquitted of the allegation that he was talking on his cellphone while driving, was in the Yukon Court of Appeal this week where an Appellate Court Judge ruled that he was indeed guilty of using a mobile device while driving.
In the Yukon Supreme Court, Pumphrey successfully argued that because his cellphone was wedged between his ear and shoulder, he technically was using his device “hands free”. The Crown appealed the decision of the Supreme Court Judge, and, when the case was heard in the Yukon Court of Appeal earlier this week, a Judge agreed with the Crown and found Mr. Pumphrey guilty.
The Judge stated that the Supreme Court Judge had erred when he ruled that he had no jurisdiction to interpret the ambiguous language of the Motor Vehicle Act. The Appellate Court Judge advised that it is the Courts duty to interpret language where it is unclear. He went on to say that in his interpretation, hands-free means “use without being held by the operator in any fashion”. He imposed a suspended sentence and one day of probation on Pumphrey. He also advised that he had wished to grant Mr. Pumphrey an absolute discharge, due to the work he had done in representing himself, but declared that he did not have the jurisdiction to impose such a sentence.
Bottom line: If you have to take that call, just pull over.
Link to story here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/appeal-judge-convicts-yukon-man-in-hands-free-cellphone-case-1.3061799
by Jason Tarnow | Mar 24, 2015 | Crime, Legal Rights
Up in smoke: don’t get baked by baking (yet)
On Friday, March 20, 2015, B.C. lawyer Kirk Tousaw attended the Supreme Court of Canada to argue the encroachment of certain provisions of the Controlled Drugs & Substances Act on a person’s ability to consume medical cannabis.
As it stands, the only way in which medical marijuana can be legally consumed is through smoking or vaping. This posed a huge issue in 2009 for Mr. Owen Smith, a Victoria resident who baked cannabis-infused cookies and produced cannabis-infused cooking oils for members of the local Cannabis Buyers Club. Mr. Smith was charged with trafficking for his production of over 200 cookies and oils after a large volume of paraphernalia was found in his apartment. He was acquitted of all charges after the B.C Supreme Court ruled that the criteria within the annex of Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, part of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act governing rules of consumption, was indeed unconstitutional.
The B.C. Government appealed the ruling of the Supreme Court in the B.C. Court of Appeal. Unfortunately for the Fed’s, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision in a 2-1 split. Because of the split decision of the Court, the Government was automatically granted Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada.
One of the main focuses of the pro-cannabis argument to allow for the consumption of edibles and the like, circles around the fact that not all marijuana users wish to be smoking day in and day out. For those suffering from conditions that include chronic pain or discomfort, the act of smoking can be unpleasant and can result in unwanted side effects. Aside from that, it also allows consumers to dose while being discreet (apparently not everyone loves the smell of freshly burned herb) which should satisfy roommates, neighbors, and landlords.
Furthermore, studies have suggested that edible marijuana products can leave you with a much more desirable high than you get with smoking. The effects also last much longer, which leads to users having to medicate on a less frequent basis.
We still do see people charged with criminal offences that are marijuana-related in Vancouver and its surrounding suburbs of Richmond, Surrey, and beyond. However, this is the first time that a medical marijuana matter of contention has made it to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is, without a doubt, going to be a landmark decision that will impact medical cannabis users, producers, and suppliers.
by Jason Tarnow | Oct 7, 2013 | Crime, Legal Rights
In British Columbia, and across Canada, we pride ourselves in being known as multicultural, diverse, and tolerant. In particular, we encourage the celebration of our Aboriginal peoples’ heritage and culture – an ideation that has deep roots in our history. The issues surrounding the treatment our First Nations’ peoples are as delicate as they are primary; although we have made great strides over the past decade, we still have a long way to go before we declare success. An area that is often over looked by the general public, however, is how Aboriginal people are handled in our Judiciary system.
For example, Aboriginal people account for approximately 2.8% of the entireCanadian population – a fairly small percentage. Therefore it may be surprising to learn that they account for a whopping 18% of Canada’s federal inmates (according to the Correctional Service of Canada (“CSC”)). The CSC has stated that they are committed to developing a National Strategy that will specifically target the unique considerations that must be taken when dealing with Aboriginal offenders. They place specific importance on interventions for these offenders by developing and implementing care strategies for individuals suffering from substance abuse, and other addiction issues. Unfortunately, this likely means removing individuals from homes on reserves, which are often located in remote communities, without the resources to deal with the serious medical issues that accompany substance abuse problems. It is also an idea that is met with resistance from the First Nation’s people, which is understandable.
The lack of ways and means to address addiction issues early on often leads to “intervention” (i.e. the arrest and detainment of an Aboriginal offender) at the point where there is little that can be done – other than to have the individual slowly manoeuvre their way through our ever-clogged Court system. It is in our sophisticated and couth judicial system, that the unique needs of the Aboriginal offender are often neglected.
So by this point you’re probably wondering what justice-specific initiatives our Government is taking in order to properly deal with this issue. Well, there were a couple of legislative actions taken back in the 90’s, a few Directives from various commissions, and even an Annex or two. But it seems pretty obvious that these attempts can’t be labelled as anything other than futile.
Probably, though, the most noteworthy stride made by the Canadian Government towards respectfully handling the issue of Aboriginal offenders in our penal system, is the creation of Gladue Court.
Essentially, if you meet the specific requirements (Aboriginal Heritage being key, among others) you can have your case directed to Gladue Court, where the sentencing Judge will take into consideration the specific and unique circumstances of you being Aboriginal (discrimination, residential schools, etc).
The name of the Court is derived from the landmark 1999 Supreme Court of Canada case known as R. v. Gladue. The main principle of the case is that other reasonable alternatives should always be considered prior to a custodial (jail) sentence. This could mean serving a sentence in the community, counselling, and rehabilitation in relation to drugs and alcohol abuse. If the sentencing Judge determines that a jail term is necessary due to public interest, he or she must still take the sentencing provisions of Gladue into account, which could result in a lighter custodial sentence.
There are a few flaws, though. One major pitfall is that an individual cannot be considered for Gladue Court if they are in custody. If you’ve been detained without Bail, or can’t obtain the necessary resources to make Bail, you’re considered ineligible. Another disadvantage is that the principles of Gladue are still improperly applied in many instances. It isn’t a system that is necessarily taken advantage of by those who may benefit from it, simply due to a lack of knowledge surrounding its existence.
We are fortunate enough to have a Gladue Court in Vancouver, British Columbia, which is available to residents in Richmond, New Westminster, Surrey, Delta, and so on. There are several other Gladue Courts located in Eastern Canada, for example, in Toronto, Ontario. It is likely that this Court will expand as the demand grows for services – and the demand can only grow, the system can only flourish, through knowledge and education.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence and would like to know if you meet the necessary prerequisites to be considered for Gladue Court, it is important to have an experienced and seasoned criminal defence lawyer there to assist with the process. Please do not hesitate to contact us at Tarnow and Company where we are proud to offer extensive knowledge surrounding Gladue Court procedures.
by Jason Tarnow | Oct 3, 2013 | Crime
As mentioned in previous posts on our site, David Tarnow is qualified to engage in the practice of law in the Territory of the Yukon. Over the past year, Mr. Tarnow has successfully argued a number of cases in the Territorial Court. More often than not, the cases have either resulted in an acquittal of the Accused, or have been resolved by way of a Stay of Proceedings – both of which are optimal results for the Defence in any criminal case.
Since the beginning of September 2013, Mr. Tarnow has been conducting a Jury Trial in Yukon’s Supreme Court, in which our client has been charged with the Attempted Murder of a Police Officer. It goes without saying that this charge is one of most serious offences in the Criminal Code of Canada. The Whitehorse Star, a local paper in Whitehorse, Yukon, released an article surrounding the circumstances of the alleged offence and the Trial, and can be read here:
http://www.whitehorsestar.com/archive/story/lawyer-renews-his-suspicions-of-investigations-handling/
The Jury is expected to begin their deliberations shortly. Make sure to check back to our site to keep up to date with the outcome of the case.
