[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

Dealers will probably diversify. Some at least. Which might cause some issues in the short run

They can't just create more demand for other drugs. Those who use coke and heroin already have dealers. If more criminals are chasing the same demand, it will undercut the reward for being this type of criminal.

Reality is that most low level pot dealers drifted into dealing because they smoke it themselves, and support their own habit by selling to their buddies (I certainly knew lots of people fitting that description, years ago). They will not be in a position to switch. 

[Malthus]

10:17 doesn't have the same ring as 420, but nevertheless that's the day Canadians can legally toke up.

Is that the date for legalization of purchase and consumption or the date to roll out retail sales?

Date for legalization (insisted on by the provinces, so they can get their shit together). Not clear if that date will also see retail sales - that depends on the province.

In Ontario, the plan was to have retail stores - a crown monopoly - by the end of 2018. However, the recent election of Ford - a conservative - has raised the possibility that these may be scrapped in favor of allowing retail sales at privately owned stores.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-marijuana-cannabis-sales-doug-ford-1.4713848

It isn't clear what will happen.

[Admiral Yi]

Guess I have to schlepp back up to the Jamaicans at Tam Tam.

[Jacob]

Guess I have to schlepp back up to the Jamaicans at Tam Tam.

Come to Vancouver. We have plenty of retail sales already.

[Admiral Yi]

Come to Vancouver. We have plenty of retail sales already.

How so?  Fake medical stores?  Or don't give a fuck about the law, welcome to Buds R Us?

[Jacob]

Come to Vancouver. We have plenty of retail sales already.

How so?  Fake medical stores?  Or don't give a fuck about the law, welcome to Buds R Us?

Private medical society stores with a very very low threshold for proving medical need and easy membership requirements.

One intersection three blocks from my house has three of the stores.

[crazy canuck]

Come to Vancouver. We have plenty of retail sales already.

How so?  Fake medical stores?  Or don't give a fuck about the law, welcome to Buds R Us?

Private medical society stores with a very very low threshold for proving medical need and easy membership requirements.

One intersection three blocks from my house has three of the stores.

In addition to that, the reality is there a a number outlets that don't even bother with the charade of the medical requirement anymore.  There are lots of "coffee shops" all over the city.  Everybody is staking out their space and the people who are waiting to open after the legalization date are going to have to compete against people who have already established a customer base. 

[Tonitrus]

Come to Vancouver. We have plenty of retail sales already.

How so?  Fake medical stores?  Or don't give a fuck about the law, welcome to Buds R Us?

Private medical society stores with a very very low threshold for proving medical need and easy membership requirements.

One intersection three blocks from my house has three of the stores.

He could also just go to Seattle where there is retail sale without any hangups. 

[Jacob]

One of the places near my house:

A membership with Lotusland Cannabis Club is FREE!
To become a member and be eligible to purchase medical cannabis products from us you will need to be 19+ years of age and provide your valid, government-issued photo I.D.   We have a self diagnosis membership form as well a Code of Conduct which must be filled out and signed.

[Grey Fox]

Quebec will mainly do it over the web.

[crazy canuck]

This opens the door to more arbitrary decision-making.

Yes, I agree.  There is some hope the comments of the dissenting judges regarding the need to refine the Dore analysis will be developed by the lower courts but, in conversations over the last few days with other members of the bar, I think we are in the minority in thinking this development is troubling.  It seems lawyers can be as uncritical as anyone if the result accords with their view of the world.

We see this all the time - a sympathetic fact situation leading to a result with logic that will, undoubtedly, cause trouble in the future.

That so much of the result-oriented logic is directed at reaching results that accord with social liberal positions is of course great in the sense that these are usually positions I personally support ... but it is terrible for consistency and fairness in the law.

We are not alone

https://doubleaspect.blog/

The dissent is right that a referendum is simply incompatible with the framework for reviewing administrative decisions employed by the majority. It makes no sense to demand, as the majority does, that judicial review of administrative decisions effectively made by non-experts who do not deliberate be deferential on the basis of administrative expertise and deliberation.

But that, of course, does not address the real question, which is whether judicial review that implicates constitutional issues should be deferential at all. If the courts do not abdicate their responsibility to ensure that administrative decision-makers comply with the constitution, then whether these decision-makers abdicate their duty by deferring to a popular vote matters rather less. Justice Rowe cannot be right that a majoritarian procedure is, in itself, anathema as soon as the Charter is concerned. Of course the Charter is supposed to protect against the tyranny of the majority ― but it does so by empowering courts to review the decisions of majoritarian institutions, whether law societies, municipal councils, or legislatures, and not by preventing such institutions from deciding matters that might affect constitutional rights.

From the standpoint of administrative law and of constitutional control over the administrative state, the Trinity Western cases are a catastrophe. The Supreme Court subverts the Rule of Law by giving administrative decision-makers virtually unlimited powers, unfettered by statutory restrictions, and reinforced by the hopeless vague concept of "shared values" that allow these decision-makers to impose their views on those subject to their power quite apart from any legal authorization. As I will argue next, the Trinity Western decisions are also distressing because of their evisceration of religious freedom. However, the administrative law aspect of these cases might be an even more toxic legacy, because it cannot be confined to a single constitutional right that is an unfortunate victim of the culture war. The administrative state is pervasive, and the Supreme Court's refusal to keep it under control will make victims on all sides of that narrower, if more salient, conflict.

[Malthus]

Yup. Most people have no idea how powerful the administrative state is, and so don't understand why judges bending over backwards not to interfere with it is dangerous.

[citizen k]

Come to Vancouver. We have plenty of retail sales already.

How so?  Fake medical stores?  Or don't give a fuck about the law, welcome to Buds R Us?

Private medical society stores with a very very low threshold for proving medical need and easy membership requirements.

One intersection three blocks from my house has three of the stores.

He could also just go to Seattle where there is retail sale without any hangups. 

I've been to one in Spokane. They have menus like you're at a restaurant.

[Oexmelin]

Yup. Most people have no idea how powerful the administrative state is, and so don't understand why judges bending over backwards not to interfere with it is dangerous.

Could I ask you and CC to define how you see (or how "Justice" sees) "the administrative state" ?

[crazy canuck]

Yup. Most people have no idea how powerful the administrative state is, and so don't understand why judges bending over backwards not to interfere with it is dangerous.

Could I ask you and CC to define how you see (or how "Justice" sees) "the administrative state" ?

It is a complex answer and involves the history of politicians delegating decisions to administrative bodies and so bear with me as I give some context.  If you want the tldr version drop down to the last sentence. Generally, rather than ministries within government making important policy decisions, many important decisions are made by administrative bodies which, although created by statute, are independent of government.

For some administrative bodies, there are good policy reasons to create that independence - like national banks setting lending rates.  But there are a lot of other administrative bodies making decisions that would fall fairly comfortably into the work of a government ministry.  Think of transportation regulators, health authorities, water authorities, drug regulators, communications regulators, resource regulators, utility regulators etc etc etc. 

When this technocratic apparatus was being created there was a clear recognition that their decision making power needed effective oversight.  Since the politicians had already delegated their decision making authority it fell the the courts to provide that oversight.  There were three main reasons for a court to overturn an administrative decision.  First, if the administrative decision maker exceeded their jurisdiction (ie their decision making authority granted by their governing statute).  Second, even if they made a decision they were authorized to make, the court intervened if they make an error of fact or law (many paragraphs could be written regarding what that meant over time and I am, of necessity oversimplifying here).  Third, did the administrative decision maker engage in a process which was unfair (again much has been written about what that means).

The courts have struggled a great deal to define appropriate tests to create an effective and efficient system of review of administrative decisions but the courts have been consistent to ensure administrative decision makers did not usurp the legislative function of government.  That is the significant thing that has now changed.  With the TWU case and another recently decided administrative law case - West Fraser - the Court has abdicated that oversight function and now defers to the decisions of administrative decision makers when they enter into the legislative policy making area even if that policy/rule making function was not delegated to them by the legislature.  Further, the court has removed any predictable or effective method of reviewing for error.

As a result, administrative decision makers are no longer carrying out decision making functions delegated to them by the legislature, they are now policy makers who are unelected and effectively beyond review or oversight.