Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on May 2, 2009
Part 2/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OcVKM... Part 3/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyL_qS... Memorandum of the Attorney General cites fear of s.4 invalidation: "33. The judgment in this case may create confusion concerning the constitutional validity of the prohibition against the possession of marihuana as set out in S.4 of the CDSA and therefore compromise existing prosecutions under the CDSA. In R. v. Poelzer, for example, a prosecution currently underway in B.C. Supreme Court, defence counsel has argued that, by virtue of the Ontario Court of Appeal's judgment in R. v. J.P., the invalidation of s41(b.1) of the MMAR retrospectively invalidates s.4(1) of the CDSA in respect of marihuana. The Court in R. v. JP ruled that the combined effect of Parker and Hitzig meant there was no constitutionally valid marijuana possession offence between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR were constitutionally rectified by the decision in Hitzig. Courts may construe the Federal Court of Appeal's decision as creating a similar period of retrospective invalidity dating back to December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into the MMAR." Bingo.