Date: 20010814
Docket: T-629-01
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 891
BETWEEN:
J.J. MARC PAQUETTE
Plaintiff
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] At Mr. Paquette's request, the hearing was held in French although the documents were filed in English.
[2] This is a motion to vary a condition of the exemption obtained by the plaintiff under s. 56, which excludes the right to import marijuana. The motion also seeks an order of mandamus to compel the defendant to perform her duty and provide the plaintiff with the information he needs to proceed with the importation of marijuana in order to fill his prescription.
[3] Mr. Paquette is aware that he is seeking a review of the decision, which authorizes him to obtain an exemption under s. 56.
[4] The plaintiff argued that Jody Gomber's affidavit is misleading since in para. 56 it mentions in particular that her Department is not aware of any legitimate source of marijuana which the plaintiff could use as a source of supply, although only a few days ago the same Department announced a grant of over a quarter million to a McGill University physician to conduct a study on the medical use of marijuana, which has to be imported from another country.
[5] Although the Court does not have access to details supporting the plaintiff's statements, at the very least the effect of this is to leave it in doubt.
[6] Additionally, the plaintiff explained his dismay at being unable to obtain marijuana which he is authorized by legal means to use, and the fact that he has no choice but to approach organized crime and regularly become a victim of violence, when he is simply trying to legally obtain the prescription for which he has authority.
[7] I explained clearly to the plaintiff that in the present circumstances it was not possible for the Court to rule in his favour on an authorization to import.
[8] However, it has to be recognized that the result of authorizing persons who are ill and vulnerable to benefit from an exemption under s. 56 without giving them a reasonable opportunity to obtain the marijuana legally is to place such vulnerable persons in an untenable position that will also have the consequence of considerably increasing the stress to which they are subject.
[9] In his decision in Néron v. Canada (Attorney General of Canada), 2001 FTC 683, Teitelbaum J. said:
...Therefore, to be permitted the use of marijuana for medical reasons, the person making such a request must show sufficient evidence that the applicant requires marijuana to alleviate pain or nausea. Having said this, the respondent has a duty not to put impediments in the way of such requests that would make the granting of such a request under section 56 illusory. The respondent should, first of all, ensure that such a request as is being by the present applicant be dealt with in the shortest possible delay, not months as appears to be happening in this case.
Secondly, the consideration of such requests should be given in a generous and sympathetic manner and not in a restrictive or narrow manner. Any doubt, if the person is ill, should and must be resolved in favour of the applicant.
[10] For everyone who is granted an exemption under s. 56, nothing could be more frustrating than to encounter the immense difficulty of obtaining supplies under normal circumstances in order to secure medication to which they are entitled.
[11] If Parliament or the proper authority decides that authorization should be given to individuals to use a substance which had hitherto been ruled illegal, such persons should legitimately be in a position to obtain the said substance without it necessitating unreasonable delays or an inability to obtain supplies unless they resort to illegal means, or worse, to organized crime.
[12] At this stage, therefore, I have no choice but to dismiss Mr. Paquette's motion, strongly recommending that the defendant take the necessary steps as quickly as possible to give their full effect to the provisions contained in the s. 56 exemptions.
Toronto, Ontario
August 14, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-629-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: J.J. MARC PAQUETTE
Plaintiff
-and-
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
CANADA
Defendant
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2001
PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER AND
ORDER BY: BLAIS J.
DATED: TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2001
APPEARANCES: J.J. Marc Paquette
for himself
Ritu Banerjee
for the defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: J.J. Marc Paquette
A-162 Atlantic Avenue
Hawkesbury, Ontario
K6A 1V5
for himself
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
for the defendant
|
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20010814
Docket: T-629-01
BETWEEN:
J.J. MARC PAQUETTE
Plaintiff
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
|
Email this Content