![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Supreme_court_of_Canada_in_summer.jpg/640px-Supreme_court_of_Canada_in_summer.jpg&w=640&q=50)
R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine
Supreme Court of Canada case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that Parliament had the authority to criminalize the possession and trafficking of marijuana, and that power did not infringe on the section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2023) |
Quick Facts R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine, Hearing: May 6, 2003 Judgment: December 23, 2003 ...
R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Hearing: May 6, 2003 Judgment: December 23, 2003 | |
Full case name | David Malmo‑Levine v Her Majesty The Queen; Victor Eugene Caine v Her Majesty The Queen |
Citations | [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74 |
Prior history | R. v. Malmo-Levine, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1025 (QL) (S.C.); R. v. Caine, [1998] B.C.J. No. 885 (QL)(Prov. Ct.); R. v. Malmo-Levine et al., 2000 BCCA 335 |
Ruling | Appeal dismissed. |
Holding | |
Parliament is authorized to criminalize possession of marijuana. Criminalization of marijuana does not infringe on Section 7 rights in the Charter. The harm principle is not a fundamental principle of natural justice. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices: Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps | |
Reasons given | |
Majority | Gonthier and Binnie JJ., joined by McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ. |
Dissent | Arbour J. (in Caine) |
Dissent | LeBel J. (in Caine) |
Dissent | Deschamps J. (in Caine) |
Close
The Court found the harm principle is not a fundamental aspect of natural justice in Canada relevant to section 7 of the Charter.