SUPREME COURT DELAYS POT APPEAL

Ottawa's move toward decriminalization puts landmark appeal on backburner

OTTAWA -- Canada's highest court said it had no choice but to postpone a
landmark case yesterday in light of the federal government's decision to
introduce legislation to decriminalize marijuana.

In a rare move, the Supreme Court of Canada sought to adjourn a hearing on
claims by convicted pot smokers that the federal marijuana laws are
unconstitutional because the drug is harmless. The lawyers for the
defendants and the Crown wanted to go ahead with the hearing, but Chief
Justice Beverley McLachlin said that wouldn't make sense.

"A central question is the Minister of Justice has announced his intention
to introduce legislation in the Parliament that will decriminalize, in some
ways, possession of marijuana," she said.

"The underlying basis will be taken up in Parliament and widely discussed
for months to come. In considering all of these circumstances, the court
will adjourn."

The appeal, which has become a flagship case for marijuana users across
Canada who want pot legalized, will be heard sometime during the Supreme
Court's spring session, which starts in April.

Its adjournment came one day after a special parliamentary committee on the
non-medical use of drugs recommended decriminalizing marijuana for
possession of amounts up to 30 grams.

The change would mean pot is still illegal, but possession in smaller
amounts would be punishable by fine and not carry a criminal record.

Earlier this week, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said he would introduce
legislation to decriminalize marijuana in the new year.

The three appellants in the case, convicted of possession and trafficking,
are making a constitutional challenge to the marijuana laws.

"It seems to me there's an utmost disrespect that was shown for the legal
process," said lawyer Alan Young, who represents one of the defendants,
Christopher Clay.

"The court feels they've been put in a difficult position. The Minister of
Justice should not have done that."

"Smoking pot is a relatively harmless activity in the overwhelming majority
of cases," said Paul Burstein, who also represents Mr. Clay. "It's
unconstitutional for Parliament to use the criminal law to prohibit
something that causes no harm."

Mr. Clay, 31, who owned a store in London, Ont., called the Great Canadian
Hempatorium, was given a $700 fine and three years probation in 1997 when he
was convicted of marijuana possession and trafficking.

"I've waited eight years. I can wait a bit longer," Mr. Clay said yesterday.

"I think there's tremendous pressure on Parliament to do something."

"I think we'll be back here in the spring session," said 31-year-old David
Malmo-Levine, another defendant.

"The government won't have raised a finger, won't have done anything, or
else they'll have introduced a horrible bill that will result in many people
going to jail for unpaid fines . . . either way, we'll be back here with the
same complaints."

The other defendant in the case is Victor Caine, a B.C. man who was
convicted of possession after he was arrested in 1993 while sharing a joint
with a friend in his car.