MEDICAL MARIJUANA USER LOSES APPEAL

An Upper Hainesville man has lost his appeal of a
marijuana-possession conviction after a Court of Queen's Bench judge
rejected his argument he had a valid medical letter of support to
have and use the drug.

Todd Terrance LeClair was found guilty late last year of an Oct. 19,
2009, charge of possession of marijuana.

The charge arose after police executed a search warrant at his home
and found 215 grams of bud marijuana and 1,300 grams of low-quality
pot, or "shake."

LeClair had a medical practitioner's declaration in support of his
application under the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations to grow
and possess pot for medical reasons, but he didn't receive his
official authorization to possess marijuana until three months after the raid.

Chief provincial court Judge Leslie Jackson rejected LeClair's
argument the doctor's declaration in and of itself should have
exempted him from prosecution, suggesting Health Canada took too long
to process his application for the authorization.

LeClair appealed Jackson's decision to the Court of Queen's Bench,
but in a decision issued last week, Justice Paulette Garnett upheld
Jackson's decision.

In his trial in Woodstock provincial court, LeClair argued his
doctor's declaration of support should have been enough to exempt him
from prosecution.

He claimed Health Canada took too long to process his application for
an authorization to possess, something Jackson he had to have to
avoid prosecution.

LeClair maintained the delays in getting the Health Canada
authorization prevented him from having timely access to pot.

He'd also asked Jackson to declare relevant sections of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act unconstitutional.

Jackson rejected all of LeClair's arguments, citing the legislation
and precedents set by higher courts.

"LeClair relied on the same arguments in the trial court as he relied
on before this court," Garnett wrote in her Nov. 28 decision.

She ruled Jackson addressed those issues appropriately when he
delivered his decision.

In his arguments at appeal, LeClair also had challenged the sentence
Jackson had imposed - namely, a $500 fine and a $75 victim-fine surcharge.

Garnett said case law is clear an appellate judge should show
deference to a trial judge's decision on sentence, altering it only
if it's clearly unreasonable.

"The sentence imposed by Chief Judge Jackson is both reasonable and
fit. I will not, therefore, alter it," she wrote.

"The appeal on all grounds is dismissed."