TURMEL: POLCOA - Parliament Only Legislates, Court Only Abrogates

[KingofthePaupers]

JCT: I've been asked to crystallize the POLCOA Proposition that
must be considered by a judge. Here's a first draft:

Windsor judges Phillips and Rogin dismissed the s.4(1)
marijuana possession charge against J.P. as "no longer known to
law" because, after the Parker decision struck down the
prohibition on possession of marijuana in CDSA s.4(1) because the
MMAR had failed to comply with the Parker ruling, they had to
follow Parliament's Interpretation Act S.2.2 which said that
struck-down laws were to be "deemed repealed."

Ontario highest Court of Appeal Justices Doherty, Goudge and
Simmons over-ruled them stating the struck-down prohibition was
not to be deemed "repealed" but only "absent" until they could
fix it, even after two years of absence.

There exists no provision for laws being absent sometimes and not
absent at other times but the court just made up whatever was
needed to trick Canadians into believing courts could bring laws
back to life. (It sure helped having Law Professor and MedPot
Champion Alan Young on TV telling Canadians that the court had
"resurrected" the law. You'd think a professor would know courts
can't do that. Unless the Professeur Saboteur is working for the
other side. Anyway, when POLCOA finally wins, Alan Young will get
the blame for helping the court trick 10,000 Canadian epileptics
to death over the past 7 years. Har har har. I just love blaming
him in public while few even know that the knight in shining
armor they're cheering on their TVs is a judas to the movement.)

A Crown who decides to fight a POLCOA motion puts the judge in
the difficult position of:

Obeying Parliament and disobeying the Higher Court, or,
Obeying the Higher Court and disobeying Parliament.

(Imagine the odds in Windsor of an accused like Ken Surgent
getting two chances to put the POLCOA Proposition to Provincial
Justice Phillips or then Superior Justice Rogin. Especially when
this time, they know the over-ruling of their original decision
to obey the Interpretation Act will be appealed all the way to
the top like it was not appealed by Burstein and McAllister the
last time they were over-ruled by the Court of Appeal.)