Ron Marzel - Changing Ontario… One case at a time!

***

By BRETT CLARKSON, SUN MEDIA

Last Updated: 28th October 2008, 3:59am

Alison Myrden, who eats, drinks, and smokes 50 grams a day of medical pot, couldn’t be happier that the federal government’s marijuana monopoly has gone up in smoke.

Myrden, 44, was one of several medicinal marijuana users who yesterday watched as appeal court judges dismissed Ottawa’s bid to keep the medical pot supply chain limited to one grower per smoker.

The controversial Health Canada one-grower-per-patient regulation was struck down in January by federal court Justice Barry Strayer, who ruled the restriction was unconstitutional.

Yesterday, federal lawyers Sean Gaudet and James Goreham mounted the government’s appeal of Strayer’s ruling. Because Strayer’s ruling was under appeal, the Health Canada regulation was still in effect until yesterday’s decision.

Gaudet and Goreham argued the one-to-one policy was required to ensure against the pot from licensed growers straying illicitly into the open market.

However, the three judges, John Maxwell Evans, Karen Sharlow, and C. Michael Ryers, didn’t buy it. They dismissed the appeal after the lunch break, reducing the scheduled one-day hearing to a half-day.

And while the tight-lipped government lawyers — who declined to comment — started packing up, the pro-medicinal marijuana advocates cheered and congratulated lawyers Alan Young and Ron Marzel, who were representing 30 patients seeking the right to buy pot from a Smiths Falls grower called Carasel Harvest Supply Corp.

Yesterday’s ruling means that licensed medical pot smokers are no longer restricted to getting their weed from a grower who only provides bud to them.

“We all want the same thing ultimately and that’s our freedom. That’s what it boils down to, the freedom to be able to do what we want without government intervention,” Myrden said.

It also means that the much-maligned green grown in Manitoba by a federally contracted grower is no longer the only supplier who can provide weed to more than one person.

Myrden adamantly refuses to smoke the government-issue weed grown in Flin Flon by Prairie Plant Systems.

“I’ve tried it, it’s garbage,” said Myrden, a former corrections officer who smokes to combat symptoms of chronic progressive multiple scleroris. “It’s absolutely disgusting, it’s sticks and seeds and stems, I can’t believe they’d make us smoke that as medicine.”

Myrden, who also suffers from a rare facial condition she says causes “violent pains,” has a government licence to grow her own. She consumes 50 grams a day by eating it, drinking it in tea, and smoking 30 joints.

Outside court yesterday, Young called on Health Canada to adopt more open-minded policies surrounding medicinal marijuana.

“It’s time for Health Canada to recognize that medical marijuana is an established part of the regimen of a lot of patients,” Young said. “Instead of thwarting patient needs, they should be accommodating patient needs. Hopefully this case will be a signal to them. Quite frankly, they’ve lost almost every round (in court).”

Click below to watch the video:

Ottawa’s monopoly on pot over

Courts Bureau

Tommy Taylor found himself in deep trouble on July 1 when he was charged, for a second time, with driving while under suspension.

When a police officer first charged him in January, he was left with the incorrect impression that paying off an outstanding $465 speeding ticket and $150 to reinstate his licence would clear everything up. He didn’t know he had a court date June 25, which he missed, sparking another automatic suspension.

On Canada Day, when another officer stopped him for speeding, Taylor was charged once again.

In both cases, notices that his driver’s licence was suspended arrived in the mail after he was charged, he says.

Now the 27-year-old non-profit fundraiser is facing a potential $5,000 fine and jail.

“If you don’t know the system, you’re screwed,” he says.

He decided he couldn’t clean up the mess on his own, so he turned to a paralegal firm.

It’ll end up costing Taylor at least $1,300 as he appeals his convictions, money he considers well spent.

“They’re the specialists. And this is what they do day in and day out,” he says, standing outside Old City Hall provincial traffic court.

For years Ontarians have turned to paralegals as a generally cheaper alternative to lawyers. The problem was that anyone could hang up a shingle with little or no training.

Starting May 1, however, new rules came into effect.

The Law Society of Upper Canada, the body that oversees lawyers, now licenses paralegals.

They must meet minimum standards, follow a code of conduct, carry $2 million in “errors and omissions” insurance and place clients’ retainers in trust accounts.

Unsatisfied consumers can complain to the law society, which will mediate and investigate.

Marian Lippa, one of the paralegals representing Taylor, welcomes the changes.

“It means we’re held to a higher standard,” she says.

But others among the 1,935 newly licensed paralegals are more critical.

Being regulated by a society dominated by lawyers is like putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse, some say.

Plus they are newly barred from areas where they are experts: real estate, wills, incorporations and powers of attorney. The most significant loss, they say, is family law.

They are stopped from providing what they say are reasonably priced divorces, separations and child custody agreements.

“That is a big, big blow to the public,” says Judi Simms, president of the Paralegal Society of Canada. “Many people are going to be clogging up the court system representing themselves.”

Malcolm Heins, chief executive of the law society, says paralegals’ scope of practice will soon be reviewed and they may be allowed to work, at least in a limited way, in some areas from which they are now barred.

But in the meantime, experienced family law paralegals have left the business, says Susan Koprich, a spokesperson for the Paralegal Society of Ontario.

For paralegals who remain, the changes are expensive – requiring payment of $845 a year in fees to the Law Society, $800 to $1,000 annually for insurance and the significant cost of maintaining trust accounts – forcing some to hike their fees, Koprich says.

But Rick Goodman, who started practising two years ago, welcomes the law society regulation. “I’m proud to be affiliated with a venerable institution.”

In a smart, air-conditioned corridor of the Toronto East Court Office at 1530 Markham Rd., Goodman discusses a case with Capt. Derek Collins of Toronto Fire Services’ legal unit.

A couple Goodman represents is facing hefty fines. Their small rental property in east Toronto, a single family dwelling divided into two units, was accidentally set ablaze by a drunken tenant in the winter of 2007, causing $30,000 worth of damage.

Goodman hopes to reduce the number of charges the couple faces – including failing to have proper smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, fire separations and escape routes.

Goodman tells the fire captain that the hard-working couple didn’t know the extent to which they had to comply with the 291-page Fire Protection and Prevention Act. “It’s a lot of material,” he says. Besides, they have since brought the house into full compliance and the tenant admitted to removing the smoke alarm, he says.

Collins says that the fire department wants landlords to be proactive in checking that their tenants still have working fire alarms. “It’s such a serious issue.”

He is willing to dismiss the charges against one of the pair, since they are joint proprietors, and to suspend the charge of failing to install fire extinguishers. But he wants fines for the other charges, including $5,000 for failure to have a smoke alarm. The total would be as much as $10,000.

“They’ll have a problem with that,” Goodman said.

They agree to adjourn the matter for three weeks.

In an adjoining courtroom, a taxi driver representing himself pleads guilty to charges even though the investigating officer is not in court – meaning the prosecutor could not have proven his case.

Justice Marvin Zuker, who has presided over family law courts for 18 years and small claims courts for the 12 previous, says the number of people representing themselves seems to be increasing.

“In Family Court at least 50 to 60 per cent of people represent themselves,” he says.

Family law is complex and full of confidentiality issues, requiring expertise, Zuker says.

It may be a natural progression, when the law society makes its scheduled review of the regulations, to once again allow paralegals some, perhaps restricted, practice of family law, Zuker says.

“I would hope and I am sure that the law society would revisit everything that’s happening now,” Zuker says.

“Certainly in terms of assurance and protection of the public, I think we are moving in the right direction in terms of licensing paralegals.”

The federal government lost another court challenge to its controversial medical marijuana program, and now has 30 days to decide whether to appeal the ruling that declared one of its key policies unconstitutional.

Under the current set of regulations, licensed producers are only allowed to grow the drug for one patient at a time. Federal Court Judge Barry Strayer said that one-to-one ratio violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The decision, the latest in a string of court cases, will essentially mean more choice for approved medical marijuana users and should provide easier access for them to the drug.

“What the federal court effectively did was assert that the government of Canada does not have a monopoly over the production and distribution of medical marijuana,” said Alan Young, one of the lawyers that launched the court battle on behalf of 30 patients.

Authorized users who cannot grow their own marijuana because they are too ill, or for other reasons, must then rely on a sole source provider — either a licensed private producer, if they can find one willing to produce only for them, or the government, which buys the plants from a Saskatchewan-based company.

“In my view it is not tenable for the government, consistently with the right established in other courts for qualified medical users to have reasonable access to marijuana, to force them either to buy from the government contractor, grow their own or be limited to the unnecessarily restrictive system of designated producers,” Judge Strayer wrote in his decision, which was released late Thursday.

The one-to-one ratio was first struck down by an Ontario appeal court in 2003, but the government reinstated the policy several months later, prompting the current court challenge.

“We’re reviewing the decision,” said Paul Duchesne, a spokesman for Health Canada, which regulates the program. He would not comment further and did not indicate how quickly the government would decide about appealing the ruling. “As soon as there is a decision we will make that clear,” he said.

Mr. Young and his co-counsel Ron Marzel described the court’s ruling as a “nail in the coffin” of the one-to-one ratio restriction.

“In theory, patients now have a choice whether to buy from the government or whether to create the small collectives of patients that go to an experienced and knowledgeable grower,” said Mr. Young.

There are about 2,000 people legally allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes but fewer than 20% buy it from the government’s supplier. Some patients say the quality is poor and others say only one strain of the plant is offered — different strains having unique therapeutic effects.

“It’s a clear message to Ottawa that they can’t stand in the way of providing much-needed medication for these individuals,” said Mr. Marzel.

He does expect, however, that the government will appeal the decision.

If it does, or if it introduces a policy that only slightly changes the ratio, the lawyers say they will head back into court. Mr. Young said they will fight for a measure called supervisory jurisdiction, which would require Health Canada to submit progress reports to the court on the program’s operation.

Strayer has already denied that request but Young said he will try again and has not ruled out lawsuits against Health Canada.

“I’m just trying to clean up the law and to ensure that sick people have proper, lawful access to a medicine of their choice,” said Mr. Young, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.
“But because of all the obstacles that have been put in that path over the last eight years, there will reach a point where it’s no longer about trying to use the courts to try and improve the program but it will be about punishing Health Canada for their incorrigibility.”

The Bill 203 legislation includes tough measures for those who choose to race on Ontario’s roads, including higher fines and longer suspensions:

- The maximum fine increases from $1,000 to $10,000 upon conviction for street racing, making it the highest penalty in Canada. The minimum fine increases from $200 to $2,000.

- Police can issue an immediate seven-day driver’s licence suspension and seven-day vehicle impoundment for street racing, participating in a driving contest or stunt driving.

- Courts can impose a driver licence suspension of up to 10 years for a second conviction, if the second conviction occurs within 10 years of the first. For a first conviction, the maximum licence suspension period remains at 2 years.

- The definition of a “driving stunt” includes driving a motor vehicle at 50 km/h or more above the posted speed limit.

- The Act also bans driving a motor vehicle on a highway with a connected nitrous oxide system. Some street racers use nitrous oxide to enhance the acceleration capabilities of their vehicles.

Reference: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/about/bill203.htm

Insurance Bureau Canada completed a study that reported the following:

- Cellphone users are 4 times more likely to crash their car

- 80% of crashes & 65% of near-crashes involved some form of driver distraction within 3 seconds before the incident

-Driver Distraction was a factor in 8 out of 10 crashes reported to the police

Canadian Attitude

80% of the study’s respondents reported that Driver Distraction was a concern to them. However, only 20% were willing to stop using their cell phones while driving.

Types of Driving Distractions to Avoid

- Cell Phones
- Text Messaging
- Eating and/or Drinking
- Radio
- CD/DVD Players
- Applying Make-up
- Shaving
- Smoking
 

Benefits to Avoiding Driving Distractions

- The prevention of accidents that can lead to disability and even death
- Lower insurance rates. (see stats from the Kanetix- Canadian Insurance Marketplace in 2007)

• For more information on keeping your insurance low, contact No Points Traffic Tickets

Here are a few more that comes to us from the FanIQ online.

1. Sorry officer, I didn’t realize my radar wasn’t plugged in.
2. Please officer, I swear to drunk I’m not god.
3. I’m sorry officer… I just got breast implants and wearing a seatbelt hurts…
4. Sorry officer, I was trying to kill a bug under my gas pedal!
5. If I was speeding, you probably were speeding to catch me, so how ‘bout we forget abut the whole thing?
6. My wife is pregnant; I’m trying to get to the hospital.

Canada’s Best Drive Crew

Nova Scotia – In 2006, only 7% of car insurance quotes given had at 1 ticket

Canada’s Worst Drive Crew

Alberta – In 2006, 17% of car insurance quotes given had at least 1 ticket. Ontario followed at 16%.

Top 10 Most Expensive Cars to Insure in Canada

1. Ford F350 Super Duty 4WD
2. Chev/GMC Silverado/Sierra 2500 4WD
3. Mitsubishi Lancer 4DR
4. Chev/GMC Silverado/Sierra 1500 4WD
5. Dodge Ram 2500 4WD
6. Nissan Murano 4DR AWD
7. Dodge Ram 3500 4WD
8. Chev/GMC Colorado/Canyon 4WD
9. Toyota Yaris 4DR Hatchback
10. Mazda Mazda6 Sport 5DR

Top 10 Most Stolen Cars in Canada (2007)

1. 1999 Honda Civic SiR 2-door
2. 2000 Honda Civic SiR 2-door
3. 2004 Subaru Impreza WRX/WRX STi 4-door AWD
4. 1999 Acura Integra 2-door
5. 1994 Dodge/Plymouth Grand Caravan/Voyager
6. 1994 Dodge/Plymouth Grand Caravan/Voyager AWD
7. 1994 Dodge/Plymouth Caravan/Voyager
8. 1998 Acura Integra 2-door
9. 2000 Audi TT Quattro 2-door Coupe
10. 1994 Dodge/Plymouth Shadow/Sundance 2-door Hatchback

Top 10 Least Stolen Cars in Canada (2007)

1. 2003 Buick Le Sabre 4-door
2. 2003 Cadillac Deville 4-door
3. 2002 Ford/Mercury Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis 4-door
4. 2000 Saturn SW1 Wagon
5. 2000 Lincoln Continental 4-door
6. 2000 Volvo S70 4-door
7. 1998 Hyundai Accent 4-door
8. 1997 Buick Regal 4-door
9. 1996 Buick Park Avenue 4-door
10. 2001 Toyota Highlander 4-door 2WD

Most Common Traffic Tickets obtained across Canada

1. Speeding of less than 45/km
2. Disobey Stop Sign
3. Seat Belt
4. Proof of Insurance (Fail to carry/Produce Proof)
5. Obeying Traffic Signals (eg. Red Light/Amber Light)
6. Validation Sticker

  
• What types of Tickets have you received? Share your experiences with our online community.
• For more information on how to fight a Traffic Ticket visit Fighting Traffic Tickets

Here are some statistics from the insurance market place for you to review:

Does Age and Gender Affect my Insurance Rates?

Insurance rates tend to be higher for males of a certain age. It is commonly believed that males are most likely to have involvement in a collision, speed, or commit a careless action.

Will a Minor Accident or Traffic Ticket affect my Insurance Rate substantially?

Yes, it will. Insurance rates are based on possibility of an individual filing a claim. An accident or a traffic ticket signals to your insurance carrier that you are potentially a greater risk then they may have previously believed.

A traffic ticket or accident can cause your insurance premiums to double and stay at that rate for a period of 3 years, ultimately making driving in Ontario unaffordable.

How does being classified as a High Risk Driver affect my Insurance Rate?

Being classified as a High Risk Driver can cause your insurance carrier to drop you.

In 2007, it was reported in the Canadian Insurance and Risk Magazine that over the next 2 years, insurance companies will be restructuring their insurance to target high risk drivers.

If an approval is reached, high risk drivers will be looking at insurance increases in the hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars.

• For more information on why or how to fight a traffic ticket, visit Fighting Traffic Tickets.