Home Introduction Products Information Gallery Links Forum Search Email

Toronto Hemp Company

Attached is the relevant case, along with some relevant "legal info". Quite frankly, all anyone really need do is give the case to the judge when they next appear. The judge will either dismiss the charge or not, depending on their "politics".

I understand that until a stay of R. v. J.P. is granted by the Court of Appeal , federal prosecutors are applying to stay charges of possession of marijuana. In one such case, R. v. Peddle, decided on May 30, 2003, Justice Kenkel of the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket held that, since R. v. J.P., [2003] O.J. No. 1949 (S.C.J.) decided that simple possession of marijuana is no longer an offence known to law, there was therefore nothing to stay. In the result, he held that the Crown cannot pre-empt a defence motion to quash the Information by staying the charge, and granted the defence motion to quash.

This is a link to the relevant Rogin Decision


ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
(Central East Region)

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
and
PHILLIP BARRY PEDDLE
Accused

RULING ON APPLICATION TO STAY THE INFORMATION

Counsel for the Federal Crown Mr. Amit Ghosh Counsel for the Defence Mr. Chris Hanson

KENKEL J.,

Introduction

Where an information on its face does not disclose an offence known to law, can the Crown pre-empt a motion to quash the information by staying the charge?

Facts

The applicant is charged with simple possession of marihuana contrary to s.4(1) of the C.D.S.A.

In R. v. J.P., [2003] O.J. NO.1949 (S.C.J.) (Summary Conviction Appeal), a decision binding on this court, Mr. Justice Rogin held that simple possession of marihuana is no longer “an offence known to law”.

The accused/applicant has applied to this court to quash the information alleging simple possession of marihuana. At the same time, the Federal Crown has asked that the charge be stayed.

Motion to Quash

A motion to quash under s.601 of the Criminal Code may be brought where an information fails to disclose an offence known to law as required under s.581(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Federal Crown submits that their motion to stay the proceedings deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the motion to quash.

Section 579 of the Criminal Code provides that Crown counsel may direct the clerk of the court to stay proceedings at any time before judgement and that such an entry shall be made forthwith thereafter.

Proceedings stayed under s.579 may be recommenced without laying a new information within one year. Thus, the accused person remains in jeopardy of prosecution on the original information until that period expires.

The discretion of the Crown under s.579 to intervene by directing a stay of proceedings should not normally be interfered with by the court. However, where the charge before the court is itself a nullity, then in my view there is nothing to stay. It would be wrong to keep a citizen in jeopardy of prosecution for a period of one year on an information that does not disclose an offence.

Conclusion

The information before the court will be quashed as not disclosing an offence as required by s.581(1) c.c.

Delivered at Newmarket, May 30, 2003

Hon. Justice Joseph F. Kenkel


Home Introduction Products Information Gallery Links Forum Search Email