Ontario court affirms that medical marijuana regulations are unconstitutional

On 7 October 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Hitzig, which found that the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) represented an unconstitutional barrier to accessing a legal supply of marijuana for persons with a recognized medical need. The Court of Appeal tailored its remedial order by striking down the second specialist test required for certain applicants, and eliminating the unconstitutional eligibility and supply provisions, rather than declaring unconstitutional the entire MMAR as the lower court had done. The court's declaration was made effective immediately, in order to maintain the prohibition for non-medicinal possession of marijuana under section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), and to constitutionalize the medical exemption for marijuana possession created under the MMAR.     

当庭宣判制度研究

当庭宣判是公开审判制度的有机组成部分,也是司法公正的内在要求。目前,审判实践中普遍存在当庭宣判率不高的现象。本文对当庭宣判的内涵及价值、导致当庭宣判率低下的原因作了分析,并对提高当庭宣判率的制度设计和具体措施的完善发表了浅见。     

US: appeals court dismisses employment discrimination suit by HIV-positive dental hygienist

Shortly before the decision in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, the US Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) issued another restrictive judgment, in a case dealing specifically with HIV-based discrimination. On 21 December 2001, in Waddell v Valley Forge Dental Associates Inc, it dismissed the case of a dental hygienist who sued his employer for suspending him from treating patients after he tested HIV-positive. The decision is a setback for efforts to ensure that the Americans with Disabilities Act translates into actual protection against discrimination for people with HIV/AIDS.