JCT: The issues Pierre Drouin's application for leave to
appeal were registered according to the Supreme Court of
Canada at
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/case-summary_e.asp?32009

SCC: 32009
Pierre Drouin v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C44683, dated February 23,
2007, is dismissed.

CASE SUMMARY

Criminal law - Narcotic control - Whether section 7(1) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, is still
an offence known to law?

The Applicant was charged with production of marihuana contrary
to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C.
1996, c. 19, possession for the purpose of trafficking marihuana
contrary to section 5(2) of the CDSA and five counts of
possessing a prohibited weapon contrary to the Criminal Code,
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.

After being committed to stand trial, but before his trial in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Applicant brought an
application for an order prohibiting prosecution of the count
under section 7(1) as it was his position that it was no longer
an offence known to law because Parliament had not re-enacted the
offence since a judge of the Alberta Queen's Bench struck it down
in R. v. Krieger (2000), 225 D.L.R. (4th) 164.

JCT: Wrong, it was struck since the Alberta Court of Appeal
supported Justice Acton striking it down.

SCC: Justice Nadeau dismissed his application, concluding that
there was a suspension of the order of the declaration of
invalidity

JCT: I guess the Supreme Court justices don't agree that the
O'Leary stay granted to the Appellant pending appeal is gone.

SCC: and that declaration was since remedied by the enactment of
the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMARs). The Court of
Appeal agreed.

JCT: If the MMARs worked and the O'Leary stay pending appeal
survived the appeal. We'll see.

SCC:
December 5, 2005
Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Nadeau J.)
Neutral citation: None
Application for order prohibiting prosecution dismissed

February 23, 2007
Court of Appeal for Ontario (Labrosse, Sharpe and Blair JJ.)
Neutral citation: 2007 ONCA 132
Appeal dismissed

April 24, 2007
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed

JCT: So Pierre Drouin was a medical user who was charged with
illegal cultivation during the two years between the possession
prohibition's invalidation by the Parker Court of Appeal on Terry
Parker Day, Aug 1 2001, and the prohibition's resurrection by the
Hitzig Court of Appeal on Alan Young Day, Oct 7 2003, and during
the almost 9 months between the cultivation prohibition's
invalidation by the Krieger Court of Appeal on Feb 4 2003 and the
prohibition's supposed resurrection on Alan Young Day Oct 2003.

Imagine, he was busted after the Parker and Krieger invalidations
and before the Hitzig resurrection and the Supreme Court Justices
McLachlin, Charron and Rothstein, condemned a legitimate medical
user to trial on charges that didn't even exist when he was
busted.

Anyway, when Pierre Drouin came up for pre-trial, the Crown
offered him 6 months house detention, 1 or 2 years probation,
confiscation of all his stuff, 10 year suspension of his firearms
permit. Pierre told the judge he wouldn't take it and was ready
to fight as a medical user. The judge asked to see his exemption
card but did mention that the deal might be harsher if he didn't
plead guilty.

Pierre asked to take a moment to call his coach, granted. After
calling me, the Crown came over and asked him what he wanted.
Pierre said he might consider doing 3 months. The Crown said that
was possible. But Pierre didn't want to be reporting to probation
for years. And he needed his gun permit to hunt. The Crown said
that could be done.

He wanted the "possession for the purpose of trafficking S.5(2)"
charge dropped and wanted to plead to possession S.4(1) instead
of cultivation S.7(1). But the Crown pointed out they agreed that
the possession offence was invalid at the time and he needed to
plead guilty to the cultivation charge, the one Krieger beat.

He wouldn't return Pierre $800 in cash back nor his equipment nor
his pipe collection nor his marijuana.

But Real Martin would be continuing the fight and just like the
Doug Nielsen could take a great plea and then still appeal if I,
Pierre and Real had won, so too, Pierre took the financial loss
and the 3 month deal to get it all over with and tend to his
health and he can still appeal if Real wins.

And Real Martin's fight continues tomorrow Aug 15 in Ontario
Superior Court in Cochran.