JCT: I just got the background arguments at the Supreme Court of
Canada in Sfetkopoulos. Of course, what's interesting is what the
Crown fears will happen to prosecutions below that are arguing
that the marijuana prohibitions are invalid if the MMAR is
flawed!!!

What a bunch of morons to put the truth down thinking no one will
ever dig up the background documents, especially after I dug up
the Krieger documentation for the Crown's loss then that provided
that beautiful Frankel "Bingo" when he admitted that section 7
cultivation and by implication section 4 possession had been
struck down in Alberta with only stay pending appeal standing in
the way of legalisation once the appeal was dismissed!

Anyway, it's 200 pages to cull but I've already found a few
beauties:

From Paragraph 33 of the Attorney General of Canada's Memorandum
to the Supreme Court of Canada:

"The judgment may create confusion concerning the constitutional
validity of the prohibition against the possession of marihuana
as set out in S.4 of the CDSA and therefore compromise existing
prosecutions under the CDSA... The Court ruled in R. v. JP that
the combined effect of Parker and Hitzig meant there was no
constitutionally valid marijuana possession offence between July
31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR were constitutionally
rectified by the decision in Hitzig. Courts may construe the
Federal Court of Appeal's decision as creating a similar period
of retrospective invalidity dating back to December 3 2003, the
date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into the MMAR."
Crown Attorney Sean Gaudet

Wow. Don't know if I should parse it now or on the weekend.

Anyway, stay tuned for all the bingos in the Crown's own words.
One more time:

"Courts may construe the Federal Court of Appeal's decision as
creating a similar period of retrospective invalidity dating back
to December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced
into the MMAR."

Har har har har.