Last week, the federal government responded to the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (Attorney General) v Sfetkopoulos. In 2008, the court declared unconstitutional the federal regulation that restricted each grower of medical marijuana to servicing only one client. The government responded by bringing in a new regulation to increase the number to two. Users of medical marijuana complain that the changes are insignificant, and predict that nominal amendments will simply force another court to make a more detailed ruling. The government’s minimal response to a constitutional ruling casts new light on the theory of “Charter dialogue.”
Category: The Charter
Has There Been Meaningful Dialogue Between the Courts and Parliament over Medical Marijuana?
By Jim Young
Published May 26, 2009 |Articles