As Officially posted @

file # 36059
Summary

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=36059

Her Majesty the Queen v. Owen Edward Smith - (British Columbia) (Criminal) (As of Right)
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme
Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes only.

Charter of Rights - Right to life, liberty and security of person - Medical marijuana users limited by regulation to
use of marijuana in form of dried plant material - Whether Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR)
SOR/2001-227, as amended, infringes s. 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law Procedure - Standing - Whether respondent has standing to challenge constitutional validity of Marijuana
Medical Access Regulations.
The respondent, Mr. Smith, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking of tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC) and possession of dried marijuana. Although not a medical marijuana user himself, at trial he
successfully challenged the constitutional validity of the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (Regulations),
which limits the form of marijuana medical users of the substance can lawfully use to dried plant material. The
trial judge found that the regulatory scheme breached s. 7 of the Charter, was arbitrary, and could not be
justified. He struck the word dried and the definition of dried marijuana from the Regulations. Mr. Smith was
ultimately acquitted on both counts, the Crown having called no evidence. A majority of the Court of Appeal
dismissed the appeal, but varied the trial judges order by suspending the effect of the declaration for one year.
Chiasson J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial for two reasons. First, in his
view, Mr. Smith did not have standing to bring the constitutional challenge. Indeed, unlike in the cases of R. v.
Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, and R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30, Mr. Smith had not been
charged under the legislative provision that was the direct subject of the constitutional challenge, and
accordingly, any declaration that the limitation in the Regulations is of no force and effect could not give him a
defence to the charges of possession and trafficking. Second, the Regulations did not impinge on the liberty or
security of the person interests of medical marijuana users. Alternatively, if those interests were affected, the
Regulations did not offend any principle of fundamental justice.
OUR EDA RESPONSE ON INTERPRETING THIS SUMMARY FILING.
It should be noted that 2 of the 3 Justices at this SCC hearing would not have accepted the appeal of Mr Smith's
not guilty verdict that was handed down by the BCSC. The only dissenting Justice who also ordered the trial is
J. A. Chiasson, [JC] and his opinions are very alarming and frankly a threat to everyone's common law Heritage.
ON THIS; if he was a Federal Court [FC] Judge, he could be justified in arguing an opinion that FC
jurisdiction should be given Supremacy over cannabis traffickers, because it's now to be governed as a
regulated trade; BUT JC is a SCC Justice and frankly it's obnoxious for him to banish any responsibility
over what s-55 of the CDSA defines as 'those classes of persons'; BECAUSE, he's depriving Soveriegn
citizens from being protected under our founding principle of the SCC being the Supreme law in Canada
ON EXPLAINING THE WORDCRAFT THAT IS BEING ABUSED [in this summary]

1. This summary is expressing what JA Chiasson wants this trial to create new case precedent into law.
i. This summary's explanation of JC's reasoning is deliberately not well structured [as in] it bounces
around and muddles the statement of fact in order to cloud rather than explain what's being pressed.

2. What should be noted is the dangerous base root of his position: NAMELY: the SCC can exercise some
kind of authority to limit the scope of the SCC and the Provincial Supreme Courts to just protecting its'
citizens' common law rights Charter rights when the abuse of our rights comes from Criminal Code laws.
i. This reasoning leads to accept that we Canadians have no right to be protected by the Charter, from
the total destruction of our citizens' Sovereignty, with Federal Court regulations, like s-55 of the CDSA.
ii. It really is heinous for an SCC Justice to alienate an entire group of Sovereign citizens to NATO rule
because s-55 of the CDSA says so. It really is the start of a 1935 Hitler scheme to alienate undesirables.

3. He is correct in observing that Owen Smith's case is similar but not the same as Morgantiler's case
[abortion] and Big M Drug Mart because they are cases where an actual Criminal Code law was infringing
on a Sec 7 and/or Sec 15 Charter right, by someone providing goods and services, under a fiduciary trust
for citizens who would otherwise be deprived of a Charter right, if they did not provide the service.
i. He is contending that Canadians have no protection from Sec 7 of the Charter because trafficking in a
drug that the CDSA controls or prohibits is not a crime under the Criminal Code. What is being glossed
over is that CDSA trafficking charges can get an accused greater punishment sentence than murder in
those Federal Courts, BUT IT's WORSE: it's a NATO court inviting itself to incarcerate people for what
really is not a crime in Canada, under all kinds of common law provincial Supreme Court rulings.
ii. It's actually a breach of his fiduciary trust for a SCC Justice to say that a Sovereign citizen can become
an ordinary citizens under NATO [with the stoke of a pen] therefore undeserving of being graced with a
need to protect our common law rights from those NATO /Federal Courts imposed Statute laws.
It is actually legal insanity [Sec 16 CC] for JC to omit the obvious harm that would happen BECAUSE
virtually all infringements to our rights to Freedom occur by enforcing arbitrary statutes, as law.
iii. Frankly, in the case of s-55 of the CDSA, it's worse because it's a NATO corporation that is there to
first enforce our international obligations to prohibit marijuana, and apparently even to the point - when this
compliance means losing our Sovereignty and in so doing destroy the common law rights of all citizens.
iv. The impact of the SCC supporting this, on Sec 15 CC Obedience to defacto law is staggering, and
this Sovereignty issue is being swept under the carpet as inevitable or irrelevant by everyone in the BAR.

4. WHAT WAR DID WE LOOSE? How else can NATO just invite itself in and take-over our courts?
Just because The Harpster promised to destroy Canada as we know it, does not mandate or authorize the
SCC and the Federal Courts to implement the destruction of our Sovereignty for a despotic bankster cartel
BUT THEN everything Hitler did was perfectly legal as far as their High Courts were concerned too.

5. In Morgantiler's case, once the SCC ruled on this case, doctors complied with Health Canada [HC]
regulations in order to provide abortion services, and in the case of providing of cannabis products, HC
can insist that they hold a fiduciary trust to make sure the manufactured goods and services [GST] that this
new industry provides is safe, and meets their arbitrary standards to protect quality and safety concerns.
i. He is correct in pressing that Mr Smith may have no fiduciary trust to deliver or provide goods and
services [GST] to someone with Charter rights to access a cannabis manufactured product like his
BECAUSE now that any cannabis manufactured products are controlled, means his product may not meet
the standards set by the CDSA, in order to protect the public from numerous public safety concerns
- [like] fires /explosions caused by stupid people who are improperly distilling the oils out of the cannabis,
- [like] people who extract with toxic chemicals, and in so doing make harmful medicine.
- [like] people who dilute the essential oils to make more money or contaminate the resin with other
highly addictive drugs, like opium laced hash for example.
ii. To put in another perspective when they legalized abortion meant they criminalized the back alley
abortion butchers, and the same will happen with cannabis manufactured products being made by back
yard amateurs who really don't know what they are doing and should not be allowed to harm people.

6. His summation says a lot: Alternatively, if those interests were affected, the Regulations did not offend
any principle of fundamental justice. This SCC argument is a total contempt for his Office: BECAUSE
John Locke the author of the real definition of the phase fundamental principles of Justice that our
Canadian Constitution, our entire Criminal Code and all our common law Heritage was based on, says the
form has slipped into committing tyranny because the actors simply cannot defend the undependable.
This is total perversion of the law thru lexicography, AND it's actually defined in Black's 7th as a
mental illness that leads to the total insanity of the law itself. The law writers and makers actually
believe their own bullshit, even when it's starring them in the face that it's all bullshit based on the
definitions of words that are fictitious creations of an insane mindset.

7. BOTTOM LINE: This is a juggular attack by the SCC on Freedom itself. Common law rights of human
beings must over-ride Maritime regulations that constantly trample on our basic common law Freedoms.
No one can defend themselves in Alice's wonderland of insane courts. The whole world is waking
up to the banksters corruption, YET this perversion in fundamental Justice just might succeed,
because they can. As to our resolve: They will learn to fear the voice of the west [Isaiah 59]
This is just the beginning of what will be a genuine Millennium Trust challenge, whether they like it or not.