R. v. Reeve, 2021 NSPC 38

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Reeve , 2021 NSPC 38 Date: 20210705 Docket: 2793700 & 2793703 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v.

Sheri Lee Reeve Restriction on Publication: A Common Law Ban on Publication Judge: The Honourable Judge Theodore Tax, Heard: June 3, 4, 5, & 6, 2019, September 16 & 23, 2019, February 3, 2020, December 14, 2020 and January 25, 2021, in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia Decision July 5, 2021 Charge: Application for compensation pursuant to section 24(5) of the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act Counsel: Jack Lloyd, for the Applicant Jan Jensen, for the Attorney General of Canada A Ban on Publication of the contents of this file has been placed subject to the following conditions: Pursuant to the Common Law and the Court inherent powers to control its own process, the Court grants the Attorney General’s request for a ban on publication, which prohibits the publication in any document or broadcast, or transmission in any way of the identity of, or any information that could lead to the identification of two undercover police officers who were referred to in affidavits and other information previously filed with the Court.

The officers may be referred to as “Undercover A” and “Undercover B”. By the Court: Introduction:

[ 1 ] On September 5, 2014, police officers executed a search warrant in relation to allegations that Ms. Sherri Reeve and her husband, Mr. Christopher Enns were in possession of cannabis (marijuana) for the purpose of trafficking. Police officers executed searches and made seizures at three different locations, which included their residence located at 764 East Chezzetcook Road and a warehouse located at 2-30 Colford Dr. Marijuana plants were only seized at the warehouse location at 30 Colford Dr. located at the Head of Chezzetcook, Nova Scotia.

Approximately 400 cannabis plants were seized pursuant to the warrants from the Colford Drive warehouse on September 5, 2014 and soon after, all of them were destroyed. [ 2 ] Shortly after the execution of the search warrant, Ms. Reeve, Mr. Enns and a third person were charged with the offences of possession of cannabis (marijuana) not in excess of 3 kg for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ( CDSA ) and of the trafficking of cannabis (marijuana) not in excess of 3 kg, contrary to section 5(1) of the CDSA . [ 3 ] In early November 2014, both Ms.

Reeve and Mr. Enns filed and served a notice of application for the return of controlled substances that had been seized by the police officers. They each filed separate applications pursuant to

section 24 of the CDSA within 60 days after the date of that seizure as required by section 24(1) of the CDSA . Since there were outstanding charges against Ms. Reeve and Mr. Enns at that time, the application for the return of the seized items or compensation in lieu was deferred or adjourned until the final conclusion of the charges before the court. Given the fact that the parties were aware that the plants were destroyed almost immediately after seizure, Ms. Reeve sought compensation pursuant to section 24(5) of the CDSA .

Section 24(5) of the CDSA reads as follows: “ Payment in compensation in lieu 24(5) Where, on the hearing of an application made under subsection (1), a justice is satisfied that an applicant is the lawful owner or is lawfully entitled to possession of the controlled substance, but an order has been made under subsection 26 (2) in respect of the substance, the justice shall make an order that an amount equal to the value of the substance be paid to the applicant.” [ 4 ] On or about November 9, 2016, the two CDSA charges against Ms. Sherri Reeve and the third person were stayed by a Crown Attorney.

At that time, and for some time thereafter, the two CDSA charges against Mr. Enns were still before the court and therefore, his application for the return of the seized items or compensation in lieu was adjourned or deferred until the final conclusion of his charges. [ 5 ] Once the charges against Ms. Reeve were stayed by the Crown Attorney, Ms. Reeve returned before this court to pursue her application for compensation in lieu, pursuant to

section 24 of the CDSA . The parties had appeared in court and time was scheduled for the presentation of affidavit and viva voce evidence in relation to the issues raised in Ms. Reeve’s application. [ 6 ] However, prior to proceeding with the hearing, on the merits, of Ms. Reeve’s application pursuant to

section 24 of the CDSA , the Atty. Gen. of Canada on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen (HMQ) filed a preliminary motion to contest the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia to hear and adjudicate Ms. Reeve’s

section 24 CDSA application. [ 7 ] In Ms. Reeve’s application for compensation in lieu pursuant to

section 24 of the CDSA , she had also made a claim for compensation for grow equipment such as, tables, lighting, soil, fertilizer, etc. utilized in the growing of cannabis plants, which were damaged or destroyed during the search and seizure of the cannabis plants at the warehouse location on or about September 5, 2014. [ 8 ] On June 29, 2018, the Court heard the submissions on jurisdictional issues by counsel for the Atty. Gen. of Canada, Ms.

Reeve and on behalf of an intervenor, the Halifax Regional Municipality. [ 9 ] The decision of the Court with respect to the preliminary jurisdictional question was delivered on August 31, 2018 and is reported as R. v. Reeve , 2018 NSPC 30 . The Court held that the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia had jurisdiction to hear the claim for compensation in lieu in terms of the controlled substances, in this case cannabis plants, pursuant to the provisions of

section 24 of the CDSA . The Court also concluded, being a court of statutory jurisdiction, that the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia did not have the jurisdiction to determine Ms. Reeve’s claim for compensation for the personal property, that is, the items related to the growing of cannabis (marijuana) allegedly damaged or destroyed during the police search and seizure of the cannabis plants at the warehouse. [ 10 ] Following that decision, the Court scheduled several days for the hearing of evidence on this application.

The parties agreed that the application would proceed on the basis of affidavit evidence largely to replicate the witness’s direct examination with the opportunity for the opposing counsel to cross-examine the affiant. Cross examinations on the affidavits filed by witnesses on this application were heard in court on June 3-6, 2019, September 16, 2019, September 23, 2019 and February 3, 2020. [ 11 ] Given the passage of time from the filing of the application to the scheduled date for the closing submissions of counsel, transcripts of all evidence heard on this application were prepared.

Written submissions on the application were submitted by the applicant on June 3, 2020 and the respondent’s written submissions were forwarded to the court on June 26, 2020. [ 12 ] Unfortunately, due to Covid-19 pandemic, public health concerns and travel restrictions, the dates for the hearing of closing submissions had to be rescheduled on a couple of occasions due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and declarations of public health states of emergency.

The closing submissions of counsel were made on December 14, 2020 and concluded on January 25, 2021. [ 13 ] At the time when the closing submissions of counsel were made, the Court was only admitting very limited numbers of people into the courtroom itself and given the fact that Ms. Reeves counsel, Mr. Jack Lloyd was located in Toronto, Ontario, it was agreed that Mr. Lloyd would make his closing submissions by videoconference. Counsel for the Atty. Gen. of Canada, Mr. Jan Jensen, also made his closing submissions by videoconference, with Ms.

Reeve, by agreement, attending via a telephone conference call. [ 14 ] The decision of the Court was reserved until today’s date. The Issues to Determine on this Application :

1. Is Sherri Reeve the lawful owner of or legally entitled to possession of the cannabis (marijuana) seized pursuant to a search warrant and then destroyed and as such, is she entitled to compensation in lieu of the return of the controlled substance, in this case, 195 cannabis plants? 2. If the Court concludes that Sherri Reeve is the lawful owner of or legally entitled to the possession of the controlled substances destroyed by the police, what is the value of those destroyed materials and what, if any, compensation should be provided to Ms. Reeve by the Crown?

Positions of the Parties: [ 15 ] It is the position of the Applicant that Ms. Reeve complied with the 60-day timeline established in section 24(1) of the CDSA for the return of her seized cannabis plants. Since the cannabis plants were apparently destroyed very shortly after their seizure by police officers pursuant to sections 26(1) and (2) of the CDSA , it is not possible to return the plants. Therefore, the only remedy left for Ms. Reeve is to access a financial remedy pursuant to

section 24 of the CDSA . [ 16 ] Counsel for the Applicant draws the Court’s attention to the specific wording of section 24(5) of the CDSA and, he notes that where, on hearing of an application made under subsection(1), a justice is satisfied that an applicant is “the lawful owner or is lawfully entitled to possession of the controlled substance”, but an order has been made under subsection 26(2) in respect of the substance, the justice shall make an order that an amount equal to the value of the substance be paid to the applicant . [ 17 ] It is the position of the Applicant that, at all material times to this application, Ms.

Reeve held a valid a Personal Use Production Licence (PUPL) to grow 195 cannabis plants, issued by Health Canada. She grew those plants at 30 Colford Dr., Head of Chezzetcook, Nova Scotia. She also had permission to store 8775 g of dried cannabis at her home located at 764 E. Chezzetcook Road. [ 18 ] Counsel for the Applicant submits that the basis upon which government officials destroyed the cannabis plants is unclear as no order was sought by Health Canada or paperwork signed by an official of Health Canada for those plants to be “destroyed” pursuant to the authority of the Minister of Health.

During this application, a police officer called by the Respondent produced a signed

section 29 – Emergency Destruction of Plants” report, but the form prepared for that purpose, which required a signature by representative of Health Canada, was not signed by a designated Health Canada official. [ 19 ] Ms. Reeve made her application to the Provincial Court for the return of seized cannabis plants on or about November 3, 2014, but learned that on or about November 17, 2014, her plants had been destroyed. [ 20 ] The Personal Use Production Licence (PUPL) issued by Health Canada, which was valid at all material times to this application, allowed Ms.

Reeve to personally produce cannabis plants for herself and to produce medical cannabis for specific individuals. The PUPL set out specific numbers of plants and amounts of dried cannabis that Sherri Reeve was allowed to grow or have in her possession. [ 21 ] Since Ms.

Reeve’s PUPL was valid at all material times to this application, that is, on or before September 5, 2014 when the cannabis plants were seized and subsequently destroyed, she was the lawful owner of or legally entitled to possess that medical cannabis in the form of 195 plants and being able to store 8775 g of dried cannabis at her storage location in her home at 764 E. Chezzetcook Road. [ 22 ] The Applicant submits, in response to the Respondent’s position that Ms.

Reeve’s involvement in the operation of a medical cannabis compassion club disentitled her to lawful ownership or possession of her medical cannabis, that it is factually unfounded, since the charges against Sherri Reeve were subsequently stayed by the Crown. As a result, there has been no finding of guilt in relation to the allegations of trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking cannabis (marijuana) contrary to subsections 5(1) and (2) of the CDSA . [ 23 ] The Applicant submits that, even if the Court agrees with the Respondent that there is sufficient evidence of Ms.

Reeve’s involvement, knowledge and control of a medical cannabis compassion club, there is still no proof that her involvement in that compassion club should disentitle her to lawful possession of her PUPL and medical cannabis. Furthermore, the Applicant submits that there is no evidence to establish that the cannabis made available to medically qualified patients at the compassion club came from Ms.

Reeve’s PUPL. [ 24 ] Furthermore, the Applicant submits that there is no link or evidence, even from the expert witness called by the Respondent to establish that the cannabis strains and varietals grown in the warehouse under Ms. Reeve’s PUPL were the strains and varietals available at the compassion club. It is the position of the Applicant that even if Ms.

Reeve worked at the compassion club, despite potentially being liable for breaking the law in another place and in another fashion, it is totally unrelated to her lawful possession of and legal entitlement to the PUPL cannabis plants. [ 25 ] In terms of the valuation of the seized cannabis that was subsequently destroyed by the police, without lawful authority, the Applicant notes that Ms. Reeve had 195 cannabis plants which were to produce 8775 g of medical cannabis and she also had lawful authority to possess 150 g of medical cannabis on her person.

The 150 g of medical cannabis on her person was also to be sourced from her 195 cannabis plants. In total, the Applicant submits that Ms. Reeve was entitled to 8925 g of cannabis, when police officers destroyed her flowering medical cannabis plants. [ 26 ] Based upon the report filed by RCMP Cpl. David Lane, who was called as an expert witness by the Respondent, cannabis was sold “on the street” at that time at prices of varying from $10-$15 per gram. Based upon that valuation, the value of the cannabis plants seized from Ms.

Reeve and destroyed by the police would be somewhere between $89,250 and $133,875. [ 27 ] In addition, the Applicant states that, after her cannabis plants were seized and destroyed, Ms. Reeve was not able to grow another crop of cannabis for some time. Due to the loss of the plants and equipment, the Applicant states that she was not able to cultivate a new cannabis garden for 578 days. Since Ms. Reeve was entitled, by license, to an amount of 40 g of cannabis per day, and

could not grow cannabis because all of her plants and equipment were seized on or about September 5, 2014, she was unable to access23,120 g of cannabis [comprised of 8925 g from the cannabis plants themselves plus being deprived of 40 g per day for 578 days comingto a total of 14,195 g]. Once again, the Applicant claims compensation for 23,120 g of cannabis, based upon the valuation provided bythe RCMP expert, which would result in a compensation for Ms. Reeve somewhere in the range between $231,200 and $346,800. [28] Finally, with respect to the Respondent’s position that Ms.

Reeve is not entitled to compensation, based upon circumstantialevidence and reasonable inferences, that she was not in lawful possession of the cannabis grown by her under her PUPL, the Applicantsubmits that those inferences are not supported by the facts or the evidence in this case. While the Respondent relies on R. v.Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 , [2016] SCJ No.33 in support of his position, the Applicant submits that it is important that theCourt to remember that in a criminal case, the burden never shifts from the Crown to an Accused Person to prove every element of anoffence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Simply stated, the Applicant submits that there is no proof that Sherri Reeve grew cannabis andprovided her cannabis to others outside the scope of her PUPL. [29] Counsel for the Applicant submits that the criminal charges were stayed as against Ms. Reeve, and that should be the end of theissue with respect to her being the lawful owner or her legal entitlement. However, the Respondent’s argument is that Ms. Reeve’s lawfulentitlement to the cannabis and compensation ends if she is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have abused her medical license.

If theCourt agrees with the Respondent that an assessment of the evidence is required, then, the Applicant submits that the Court need not gofurther in its analysis than the fact that the charges against Ms. Reeve were stayed. The staying of the charges and that the fact that sheheld a valid PUPL.

The combination of the charges being stayed, and a valid Health Canada PUPL provide sufficient proof that she hadthe lawful authority and a legal entitlement to possession of those cannabis plants and the cannabis produced by them. [30] The Applicant notes that in Villaroman, supra, at paragraphs 37-43, Justice Cromwell noted that when assessingcircumstantial evidence, the trier of fact should consider “other plausible theor[ies]” and “other reasonable possibilities” which areinconsistent with guilt.

Justice Cromwell concluded by saying circumstantial evidence, should be assessed in the light of humanexperience and should be such that it excludes any other reasonable alternatives, which was a helpful way of describing the line betweenplausible theories and speculation. [31] Counsel for the Applicant does acknowledge that Justice Cromwell’s guidance to triers of fact in Villaroman may be useful inthis case, even though guilt can no longer be in question as the charges have been stayed. Although the Applicant submits that, factuallyor by inference, the alleged misuse of Ms.

Reeve’s PUPL may require an assessment of the circumstantial evidence based on thecomments of the Supreme Court of Canada in Villaroman. [32] Here, the Applicant reiterates that there was no finding of guilt in the criminal prosecution, As such, the Respondent’s positionis “untenable” as the Court would have to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, not that Ms. Reeve possessed cannabis for the purpose oftrafficking it, but rather, that she grew the cannabis pursuant to her PUPL and then transported it to the Farm Assists store and sold it inviolation of her PUPL conditions.

The Applicant submits that the Respondent has not established that violation of Ms. Reeve’s PUPLbeyond a reasonable doubt and there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to support an inference that Ms. Reeve grew cannabis andsold it through the Farm Assists store. [33] It is the position of the Applicant that the question then becomes whether the only reasonable inference available is that SherriReeve grew cannabis pursuant to her PUPL, which was later sold at the Farm Assists store.

He submits that there are numerous veryplausible inferences that can be drawn from the evidence and from common sense applied to the evidence. In those circumstances,counsel for the Applicant submits that the Respondent’s arguments should not be accepted and that the Court focus on the assessment ofthe value of what was seized and destroyed by the police. [34] The Attorney General of Canada represents the Respondent, HMQ on this application and he submits that for Ms.

Reeve to besuccessful and receive compensation for the destroyed cannabis plants pursuant to section 24(5) of the CDSA, it is her onus to establishon a balance of probabilities that she is the lawful owner of or legally entitled to possession of the controlled substance. The Respondentsubmits that it is not enough for Ms.

Reeve to simply say that she had a PUPL to personally use and grow 195 cannabis plants withoutsome evidence to establish that her possession of those plants was lawful and that her possession was in conformity with the legalrequirements of that Health Canada CDSA licence. [35] It is the position of the Respondent that Ms. Reeve presented no credible or reliable evidence to establish that she was either the“lawful owner” or “legally entitled” to possession of the controlled substance [cannabis plants] seized from the warehouse location andlater destroyed.

Based upon the evidence adduced by the Respondent, it appears that a numbered Corporation, 3247317 Nova Scotia Ltd,which did illegal business as Farm Assists, had the best claim to title in those plants. The Applicant, in her evidence, even raised thepossibility that the cannabis plants in question were the property of other growers. [36] The Respondent submits that while Ms.

Reeve possessed a valid Personal Use Production Licence (PUPL), which was issuedby Health Canada to grow 195 cannabis plants, but that licence only allowed her to legally grow cannabis for her own use and for the useof one another individual. She was well aware of the terms of that Licence and acknowledged that any sales of that cannabis to others oradvertising her cannabis for sale to others through social media, would be in contravention of her Health Canada PUPL license. [37] It is the position of the Respondent that the evidence established several different ways in which Ms.

Reeve flagrantlydisregarded her legal entitlement to possession of the disputed cannabis plants. Therefore, the Respondent submits that it would becontrary to public policy to compensate Ms. Reeve for flagrantly disregarding the parameters of her legal authority to grow and possessthe disputed controlled substance.

The Respondent submits that, at no time, neither the CDSA, nor the regulations made under theCDSA, permitted people with a Personal Use Production Licence (PUPL) to sell their cannabis possessed even for the limited purpose ofa sale through a compassionate club or a dispensary to patients. [38] While Ms.

Reeve simply points to the fact that Health Canada had authorized a PUPL for her to possess certain amounts ofcannabis for her personal medical use and grow 195 cannabis plants at a warehouse located at 30 Colford Drive, Head of Chezzetcook,there is no credible evidence that she was the lawful owner of the 195 cannabis plants at issue. On the other hand, the Respondent

submits that the evidence is overwhelming that the plants were being produced at the warehouse, in contravention of the licence for saleor trafficking to be done out of the Farm Assists storefront location. [39] It is the position of the Respondent that there was, in the opinion of the RCMP expert witness, a very large and “sophisticatedgrow operation” which ultimately resulted in the seizure of approximately 400 cannabis plants.

In his opinion, as supported by the“Colford Bill Review” document, the large grow operation in a rented “warehouse” required a significant amount of capital- especiallyfor electricity, property taxes, insurance to keep it operating on an annual basis. Ledger pages seized from the Halifax CompassionateClub [THCC] documented payments or credits in specific dollar amounts for cannabis produced by “growers” from which it isreasonable to infer that several of those transactions relate to credits or payments to Ms.

Reeve as well as her husband, Christopher Ennsfor the supply of cannabis to the THCC or Farm Assists storefront. [40] Furthermore, the forensic accountant called by the Respondent estimated that the cost of running that “sophisticated” growoperation, out of a rented warehouse building would be quite significant. The Respondent submits that Ms. Reeve provided no evidencewhatsoever to substantiate that she had paid any of those expenses or that she had the financial means to pay for her share of the rent forthe building, power bills for heat lamps, “staff” and all the supplies needed to grow the cannabis plants.

Moreover, the Respondentadduced evidence that others actually paid those expenses and the Respondent submits that those warehouse expenses were, in alllikelihood, covered by the revenue generated from the sale of cannabis grown at the warehouse to the storefront location in downtownHalifax. [41] The Respondent submits that, when all of the evidence is considered by the Court and reasonable inferences are drawn fromthe circumstantial evidence, based upon the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v.

Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 , [2016] 1SCR 1000, the evidence is overwhelming that the plants in the warehouse were not simply being produced for Ms. Reeve’s personal useor the use by only one other person. Quite to the contrary, he submits that the evidence established that the cannabis which was beinggrown, harvested and packaged in Mason jars with labels identifying the strain and numbers indicating the cost per gram or in large“smelly proof” plastic bags at the warehouse actually provided the needed supply of cannabis for resale by the THCC or the FarmAssists store.

At the storefront, the evidence established that cannabis purchased from several “Growers” including Ms.

Reeve was thensold for a significant financial gain at that location to its clients, “patients” or the ultimate consumers. [42] It is the position of the Respondent that, when all of the circumstantial evidence is viewed logically and in light of humanexperience, the only reasonable inference is that the “sophisticated warehouse grow operation” required significant capital to keep itoperating and that the corporate structure of numbered companies and Storefront purchases for resale of the grown cannabis generatedthat revenue.

When considered in totality, the Respondent submits that it certainly supports the reasonable inference drawn from all ofthe facts and circumstances of this application that Ms. Reeve was not legally complying with the terms and conditions of her PUPL. [43] In the final analysis, the Respondent submits that providing compensation to the Applicant on the basis of the facts establishedin this case, would be contrary to public policy and the court’s long-standing unwillingness to allow their processes to be used to furtherillegal acts. In support of this submission, counsel refers to the case of R. v.

Gombosh Estate, (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR415 where the Supreme Court of Canada determined that a public policy defence of ex turpi causa can be applied to statutory claims onlywhere turpitude was established. [44] In Gombosh Estate, the applicant claimed restoration of seized monies under the Narcotic Control Act and in that case, theculpability of the owner of the seized property was proven at the antecedent criminal proceedings.

However, the Supreme Court ofCanada added that where, in a case where there was no prior finding, the rule could still operate to bar recovery: “in the absence of aspecific finding at a trial of the requisite “tainted connection,” the Crown may fill the evidentiary gap by proving taint on the reasonabledoubt standard at the restoration hearing:” see Gombosh Estate, supra, at para. 44. [45] Although the statute in issue in Gombosh Estate was different, the Respondent submits that the potential to become disentitledto an order of compensation is founded statutorily in the wording of section 24(5) of the CDSA, which requires the applicant to establish“lawful possession” or “lawful entitlement” and the legal principle encompassed by ex turpi causa could bar recovery.

The Respondentsubmits that the basis of the ex turpi causa maxim as utilized in the Supreme Court of Canada case, stands for the proposition that thejudicial process not be utilized for abusive, illegal purposes in order to maintain the integrity of the legal system. [46] The Respondent submits that, if it was a requirement, they have met the burden to establish the moral turpitude, criminality or“taint” beyond a reasonable doubt for the doctrine of ex turpi causa to apply in the circumstances of this application. The Applicant, withthe support of Mr.

Enns, flagrantly abused the medical cannabis regulatory scheme through her deliberate actions to circumvent andblatantly flout the Health Canada PUPL which only legally permitted her to grow 195 cannabis plants and produce cannabis for herpersonal medical use and one other named individual.

In those circumstances, the Court should refuse the Applicant’s attempt to use itsprocesses in furtherance of abusive and illegal purposes and dismiss the application for compensation to maintain the integrity of thelegal system. [47] Finally, the Respondent submits that, in the alternative, if the Court decided to make an order to compensate the Applicant forthe seized and destroyed plants, the Court should value each plant at $180 based on the individual, statutorily presumed yield per plant of30 g of dried cannabis product, multiplied by the price per gram of $6 [based upon the testimony of the RCMP expert, Cpl.

Lane]. [48] In those circumstances, the Respondent submits that the total value of the 195 plants based on the per gram price being chargedfor dried cannabis should be a maximum valuation for the controlled substance seized and destroyed at $35,100 [195 plants x 30 g perplant x $6 per gram].

The Respondent draws the Court’s attention to the fact that the assumption of a cannabis yield of 30 g per plant isspelled out in the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations, section 30(1)(2). [49] The Respondent also rejects the notion advanced by the Applicant that she be compensated for the cannabis that she was notable to obtain from the plants while this matter was before the court. He submits that the market value of the controlled substancealready accounts for the time, effort and resources that would be required to replace the plants and those are accounted for by the pricecharged in a fair market.

Summary of the Applicant’s evidence: [ 50 ] As previously mentioned, the agreement between counsel was that the parties would provide affidavit evidence instead of conducting an oral direct examination. In that way, it would streamline proceedings during the direct examination and, also facilitate the entry of Exhibits by attaching them as an Exhibit to the Affidavit.

This process certainly saved ample time as, in the final analysis, numerous other exhibits could be located at a tab of the Affidavit of the Affiant. [ 51 ] It was also agreed that the Affiant would, if requested, be present in court for cross-examination on their affidavit and following that, there was an opportunity for counsel who tendered the witness’s affidavit, to conduct a re-examination of that witness. [ 52 ] Ms. Sherri Lee Reeve’s Affidavit was filed as Exhibit 1 on this application.

In her application, she stated that she has suffered from arthritis since childhood and it is severe in her back, hips and hands. Cannabis relieves her arthritic condition and she added that cannabis also helps relieve her post traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] symptoms. She also mentioned that she suffers from eczema and with the consent of her physician she uses cannabis mixed in with coconut oil to make a topical treatment which has managed to stop her eczema symptoms. [ 53 ] Ms. Reeve stated that in approximately 2008, she became licensed by Health Canada to grow, store and use cannabis to treat her arthritis.

The use of cannabis to treat her arthritis and other symptoms was first prescribed by Dr. William Vitale and soon after that, she became licensed by Health Canada to produce/grow cannabis for her own personal use. [ 54 ] In her Affidavit, at para. 6, Ms. Reeve states that, under the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) , she was licensed by Health Canada to grow her own cannabis pursuant to a Personal Use Production Licence (PUPL) at unit #2, 30 Colford Dr., Head of Chezzetcook, Nova Scotia. Health Canada, through the PUPL, provided permission to Ms.

Reeve to cultivate 195 cannabis plants at 30 Colford Drive, and to store 8775 g of dried cannabis harvested from those plants at her home located at 764 East Chezzetcook Road. [ 55 ] Ms. Reeve states that her PUPL was “valid” at the time of the police raid on September 5, 2014 and that the police, confirmed in their notes, presumably notes disclosed after she was charged with offences under the CDSA , that they had also checked the validity of that PUPL with Health Canada. [ 56 ] On September 5, 2014, Ms.

Reeve states that police officers executed a search warrant at unit#2 - 30 Colford Drive, Head of Chezzetcook and seized all of her cannabis plants. She states that they also seized growing equipment and other items that are important for a cannabis garden. Ms. Reeve said that the 20 units of 1000 Watt digital ballasts, 20 Batwing Reflectors and cord/sockets, 20 ratchet light hangers and 20 Ushio/Hortilux 1000-Watt light bulbs were returned to her shortly thereafter.

Many of the returned items were damaged and beyond repair and as she stated in para. 9 of her Affidavit [Exhibit 1], she “had to replace them herself which took some time and cost quite a lot of money.” [ 57 ] Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Ms. Reeve’s Affidavit relate to her arrest and being held for 23.5 hours until she was released. [ 58 ] In para. 13 of Ms. Reeve’s Affidavit, she states that shortly after she was released at the same time as Mr.

Christopher Enns, she made an application under the CDSA within the requisite 60 days after the police seizure of the cannabis plants to indicate that she wished to have the seized cannabis returned to her after the case was resolved. [ 59 ] Ms. Reeve states that, on or about October 5, 2017, the CDSA offences for which she was charged were stayed by the Crown. Since her charges had been resolved, she was then able to pursue this application.

Since her seized cannabis plants had been destroyed by the police shortly after being seized, she now seeks compensation for the destroyed cannabis plants. [ 60 ] In para. 15, Ms. Reeve stated that she was not able to start growing cannabis until sometime later, as it took time to get new equipment, supplies and genetic starting material organized in order to start her garden again. In addition, she states that it takes about five months for her to grow cannabis from seed to usable cannabis flowers.

As a result, she went without any cannabis medicine from approximately mid October 2014 until mid-May 2016 when her next crop was ready, totaling 578 days. [ 61 ] In addition, Ms. Reeve stated that she also had a license to use 40 g of cannabis per day and that as result of the police seizure and then the subsequent staying of the charges against her, she was not able to access 23,120 g of cannabis, until she could grow a new crop. [ 62 ] Ms. Reeve states that her 195 cannabis plants were to produce 8775 g of cannabis for her to store at her storage location.

She was also authorized, in 2014 to possess 150 g of cannabis on her person at all times and that the 195 plants were to produce those 150 g for her. Since the police seized both her storage limit and her personal limit, the total grams seized is equal to the total grams she was authorized to possess, namely, 8925 g. [ 63 ] In her Affidavit at para. 21, Ms. Reeve states that, based upon the RCMP expert report, which was filed by the Respondent on this application, cannabis is valued at anywhere from $10-$15 per gram.

Based on that valuation, she states that the value of the cannabis seized from her would range from $89,250-$133,875. [ 64 ] Coming back to the 40 g of cannabis that she was not able to utilize for 578 days, which amounts to 23,120 g of cannabis, she claims that she should be compensated for an amount somewhere between $231,200 and $346,800, again, based upon the RCMP expert valuation. [ 65 ] The Exhibits attached to Ms. Reeve’s Affidavit [Exhibit 1] were: (

a) A copy of her Personal Use Production Licence (PUPL) with a date of issue being 24- May-2013 with an expiry date of 24- May-2014. The terms and conditions of the licencee are that the “Production Site” will be 2-30 Colford Drive, Head of Chezzetcook, NS, the mode of production will be indoor and that the maximum number of marijuana plants that she may have under production at the “production site” is 195 plants (indoor). The storage site is listed as her home address 764 E. Chezzetcook Rd, Head of Chezzetcook, NS

and that the maximum quantity of dried marijuana that may be kept at the storage site, at any time under the PUPL is 8775 g and must be stored indoors. (

b) A copy of the Crown Brief Report which was received as part of the disclosure in the prosecution. As she states in her Affidavit, the Crown Brief notes that the PUPL license for 195 plants was valid on the date of the seizure. (

c) This Exhibit relates to photographs of the damage to a door which is not part of this application. (

d) This Exhibit has a portion of the transcript of Ms. Reeve’s appearance in the court on November 17, 2014 wherein Mr. Enns, on behalf of Ms. Reeve and himself made the application to be reimbursed, but were advised that the cannabis plants, which were her medicine, had already been destroyed by the police. (

e) This Exhibit is a copy of Cpl. David Lane’s “can say evidence” regarding the value of cannabis and cannabis growing equipment. (

f) With respect to the street value of cannabis marijuana [sold in the illegal drug trade] Cpl. Lane stated that at the gram level it would be $10-$15 per gram. The report also refers to the information from the police files with respect to the seizures at 30 Colford Drive being approximately 300 cannabis marijuana plants in different stages of growth, approximately 30 pounds of marijuana, a bucket of cannabis resin (oil), digital scales, bulk packaging, $59,095 in Canadian cash currency, which was located downstairs in a knapsack in bundles and loose and miscellaneous marijuana growing equipment.

The report also notes that different strains of a marijuana have different characteristics and a

section on pricing and plant yields concluding with his

summary opinion, based on the information reviewed by him. [ 66 ] During the extensive, detailed and very thorough cross-examination of Ms. Reeve by counsel for the Respondent, for example, it took several questions to finally confirm that Ms. Reeve was either the President or Vice President of The Halifax Compassionate Club, although stating in many different ways she was not sure of the exact date.

Even after taking breaks to refresh her memory by viewing a video of her interview with the police officer on September 5, 2014, her answer was that she occupied those roles “at some point.” [ 67 ] After finally establishing that point, counsel confirmed that the Halifax Compassionate Club went by its initials at that time, THCC and that was the acronym for the club. Ms. Reeve agreed that she and Mr. Christopher Enns were two of the five people who started that nonprofit society and that she was initially registered as a director and Vice President of that organization.

She said that there was a business located at 2320 Gottingen Street in Halifax called Farm Assists Cannabis – Medical Cannabis Resource Centre which operated as a “dispensary” to only serve medical patients. [ 68 ] Counsel noted that Ms. Reeve’s affidavit in support of this application was silent with respect to what she did for a living. Her response to that question on June 3, 2019 was “I don’t ..

Anything right now except I volunteer my help to cancer patients.” Counsel repeated the question and noted that there was no mention of what she did “for a living” to which she asked the question “when was it?” Once she was advised that she had signed her affidavit in October 2017, Ms. Reeve stated: “yeah, so in October I was doing nothing, yes, except helping cancer patients voluntarily.” [ 69 ] Ms. Reeve confirmed that she and Mr. Christopher Enns were married and that they had first met in about 2008 or 2009.

She had “no idea” of the year when they were married but recalled that they had stayed together before being married and suggested that counsel check the public records. She agreed that, after meeting Mr. Enns, the two of them have been long time cannabis activists and she added that she became an activist after finding out that cannabis helped her walk and after that she obtained a medical license. Ms. Reeve also confirmed that she and Mr. ends were a couple when the Halifax Compassionate Club was founded. [ 70 ] With respect to her name, Ms. Reeve agreed with the suggestion that Mr.

Enns and others frequently use the name Jess or Jesse Jane in referring to her and she agreed that those were a couple of her aliases. With respect to a press release following a police raid of a previous location in Porter’s Lake, counsel confirmed with Ms. Reeve that she was listed as the President of the Halifax Compassionate Club’s store in Porter’s Lake and that the

article mentioned that she was “also known as marijuana activist “420jes.” [ 71 ] In addition, looking at tab P in the Affidavit of Madeleine Maclellan [Exhibit 9], she agreed that her “professional profile” homepage on LinkedIn also had another alias by which she often referred to herself as Jess James and beneath that “you grow girl!” In that LinkedIn “profile” page, Ms.

Reeve was also identified as the Vice President of The Halifax Compassionate Club from “June 1999- Present (18 years 3 months)” and that one of her specialties was “Canadian cannabis consultant.” [ 72 ] With respect to applications for membership in the THCC Society which were contained in the Affidavit of Det/Const. Duane Stanley [Exhibit 11] at tab 4, Ms.

Reeve agreed that the applications of various people in 2012 and 2013 were witnessed by her and that she had signed as a “THCC member” to witness their applications as “Jes.” Interestingly, those applications for membership also required the person seeking membership to confirm that they were not a member of a police force or a government official. [ 73 ] Counsel for the Respondent asked further questions with respect to Det/Const. Stanley’s Affidavit [Exhibit 11] at tab 4 with respect to the ledger sheets seized from the storefront on Gottingen Street.

The top of the numbered ledger sheets listed “Product Purchased,” the initials of the “Grower,” amount and the amount paid with initials to confirm the payment. Ledger #05 lists “Grower CPK- L”, Ledger #09 is headed “Grower (JJ)”, Ledger #11 “Grower C #Company” and Ledgers numbered 14, 20, 27, 28, 38 confirm transactions with “C.E.” [ 74 ] With respect to those 2012 and 2013 ledger sheets, Counsel questioned Ms. Reeve on names listed under the heading “description” and she agreed that it described a certain strain of cannabis.

Then, with respect to the stylized “S” at the top of ledger #10 with respect to strains of cannabis listed as “Kush”, “Russian” and “incredible,” she agreed that the stylized “S” was her signature on ledger pages #10 and #11. Ms. Reeve agreed, in looking at those ledger sheets, that she had written and signed things on those pages which confirmed payments to growers for cannabis supplied to the storefront.

[ 75 ] With respect to the ledger pages which listed payments to “Grower C.E.” or “Grower C # Company”, Counsel for the Respondent suggested that all of those references were to Christopher Enns, or a numbered company registered by Mr. Enns, to which Ms. Reeve answered: “I have no idea. It could be anybody.” When pressed whether her reference to “anybody” could include Mr. Enns, Ms.

Reeve repeated “it could be anybody” and that each time Counsel asked that question, she added: “I am going to give you the same answer every time.” After several questions, she finally agreed that “anybody” could include her husband. [ 76 ] Further questions were asked with respect to the ledgers contained in Det/Const. Stanley’s Affidavit [Exhibit 11] at tab 8 to confirm that they listed the amounts of “Product” received from and paid to growers by the storefront, with some of those amounts and payments having been initialed by Ms. Reeve.

Counsel suggested that, at the top of several pages, there was the word “Grower” and beside that, there were either first names or initials listed and then, below that, the ledger contained a description of various strains of cannabis, purchased by the store. Ms.

Reeve stated that the word “Grower” could be accurate, or it could also refer to a person dropping off cannabis for a grower as a “distributor” or supplier to the storefront. [ 77 ] When asked about what strains of cannabis she grew, after saying that several of the ones listed under the ledger page “Grower” were never ones grown by her, there was the following exchange at page 117 lines 12 to 14: “Q. You still – you grew other strains? A.

I’ve a medical cannabis license that allows me to grow for myself and grow for a patient to which I sell legally to.” [ 78 ] Several questions were asked with respect to ledger page #44 in Exhibit 11 which has a stylized “S” at the top of the page with a couple of circles around it. Of course, previous pages in that same ledger had the word “Grower” at the top and Ms. Reeve stated that the stylized “S” at the top of that page was not her signature. However, she did agree that the letter did look like an “S” with a several circles around it.

Moments later, she confirmed that the stylized “S” with the circle around it beside the “balance” column listed on lines 17 and 22, were, in fact, her stylized signature “S.” [ 79 ] Based on the numbers on ledger page #44, it is apparent that at the top of the page the stylized “S” with two circles around it, in Ms. Reeve’s words could possibly identify the “Grower” or “supplier” to the storefront, who then had an opening balance on January 22, 2013 [based upon the dates listed on earlier pages in that ledger] of being owed $7738.50 by the THCC “storefront” on Gottingen Street.

According to the ledger#44, on January 22. the Grower/supplier identified by the stylized “S” received a payment of $2000. [ 80 ] The same day, on January 22 nd , 2013. the Grower/supplier listed under the stylized “S” provided, according to the “amount” column, 450 g of “Green Lizzy” purchased by the THCC storefront at $7 per gram which resulted in a total under the “amount” column of $3150. On January 24, 2013, that same person supplied 161 g of “Moby Dick” at $6.75 per gram to the THCC storefront which resulted in a total under the “amount” column of $1086.75.

With those transactions, the balance as of January 24, 2013, that is identified on that ledger sheet owing to that “Grower” or supplier with the stylized “S” was a total amount of $9916.75. Ms. Reeve also agreed that “Moby Dick” is a strain of cannabis. [ 81 ] Once again, according to the information written on ledger #44 on January 24, 2013, the person listed as grower/supplier “S” on that ledger at tab 8 of Exhibit 11 was paid $5000 to reduce that person’s outstanding balance owing to them from the amount of $9916.75 to $4916.75.

The ledger also confirms that a further payment was made to a person identified as “S” listed on ledger #44 on January 26, 2013, in the amount of $2417, which reduced the outstanding amount owed to that “Grower/Supplier” to $2500. I also note that several different strains of cannabis were provided to the THCC by the Grower/supplier identified by the stylized “S” totaling $10,109 under the “amount” column to raise the outstanding balance, owed to that person, as of January 26, 2013, to $12,609.50.

According to the ledger, the total amounts paid to the “Grower” or Supplier who was listed as “S” on ledger #44 between January 22 and February 6, 2013, came to a total of over $32,780. [ 82 ] After reviewing the foregoing transactions with Ms. Reeve, Counsel for the Respondent suggested that THCC Farm Assists had advertised production of cannabis and Ms. Reeve initially agreed that they had done that but then changed their approach and tried to find growers for sick patients. She said that the growers “gave” THCC their excess cannabis and then they (THCC) “gave” that excess to the cancer patients. Ms.

Reeve maintained that there was no way she could grow the amount of “weed” that had been reviewed in the previous questions and she went on to say that “my weed went to me. It was for me and me only” and “the same with my patient’s weed. It went to him and him only.” [ 83 ] Ms. Reeve confirmed that, in 2014, she had a Personal Use Production Licence for the warehouse [PUPL] and she also had an authorization to possess [ATP]. She maintained that the PUPL allowed her to sell cannabis to her patient.

She also said that she had a Designated Production Licence that allowed her to sell to her patient, “whom I grow for legally.” Then, there was an exchange where counsel asked whether Ms. Reeve knew that the PUPL did not permit her to sell to anyone, which was not answered but she then added that her Designated Production Licence did. [ 84 ] After asking the question in relation to the PUPL, once again, Ms.

Reeve then said: “no, that permits me to grow for myself.” Then, she added that the Designated Person Production Licence did permit her to grow and sell for one person, namely, David Holding who buys the cannabis “for cash.” [ 85 ] Then, Counsel for the Respondent questioned what she believed that she was permitted to do under the Designated Person Production Licence for Mr. Holding and whether she was permitted to sell to anyone else, other than Mr. Holding. After several questions to get an answer to the question, Ms. Reeve agreed that the Designated Person Production Licence only allowed her to sell to Mr.

Holding and she maintained that: “none of the cannabis that I grew ever was sold to anybody other than Mr. Holding.” In addition, after several questions, Ms. Reeve agreed that the Designated Person Production Licence did not list 2320 Gottingen Street as a location where she could sell the cannabis that she produced. [ 86 ] Once again, Counsel for the Respondent asked Ms. Reeve to look at tab 2 of Det/Const. Stanley’s Affidavit [Exhibit 11] which has a handwritten note dated December 12, 12, with a printed heading in the middle of the page “End Float” and immediately below that

“Management Take” – $2000 with the name “Jes” circled beside that amount. Ms. Reeve maintained that she had no idea what the words “End Float” or “management take” meant. In terms of the name “Jes,” she stated “obviously that is my name” but it was not her signature. [ 87 ] As the cross-examination of Ms.

Reeve continued, Counsel for the Respondent asked questions about her comments in an opinion piece published in “The Coast” newspaper on March 1, 2012, which was entitled “Is medical marijuana going to pot?” In that article, the journalist, Miles Howe conducted an interview with “Jes James,” co-founder of The Halifax Compassionate Club and he stated that he went with her to deliver “an indeterminate quantity of medical marijuana, to as many patients as they could schedule” and added that Ms. James stated that “we have about 100 clients in active files.” [ 88 ] Ms.

Reeve stated that she did not really recall the interview but categorically stated that she does not sell cannabis to cancer patients and still never has. The cannabis is given to them. Following that, Ms. Reeve was asked if she ever did sell cannabis for money to someone who did not have cancer. Ms. Reeve answered that she did not know and could not remember everybody anyway and that “I am not going to incriminate myself.” After some clarification of her Charter protections by Counsel for the Applicant and a confirmation that it is not a defence to the questions asked by the Counsel for the Respondent today, Ms.

Reeve stated, three times, that she has never taken money from a cancer patient. [ 89 ] Ms. Reeve was questioned in relation to certain comments attributed to her in March 2014 at Mount Allison University. Initially, she did not recall the specific date in 2014 but agreed that she had made two speeches there that year. It was suggested that the speech was encouraging people to open dispensaries during the first speech.

When it was suggested that during the second speech, she had told the audience as part of The Halifax Compassionate Club’s activities, they would teach people how to break the law and not get caught, Ms. Reeve had no recollection of making that statement. [ 90 ] After stating that she had no recollection of making a speech to that effect at Mount Allison University in 2014, Counsel for the Respondent refreshed Ms. Reeve’s memory by playing a portion of a CD-ROM attached at Tab 6 of Det/Const. Stanley’s Affidavit [Exhibit 11].

The YouTube video recorded on that CD-ROM was played in court to refresh her memory of that event, which involved Sherri Reeve speaking about “hempology 101” at Mount Allison University on March 27, 2014. After the video clip was played in court, Ms. Reeve was asked whether she remembered making the statement and answered: “no, I don’t, but I can see it.” [ 91 ] There were several questions as to whether Ms.

Reeve had told the police on September 5, 2014, after their raid at her house and the warehouse that The Farm Assists store located at 2320 Gottingen Street, THC Club Farm Assists at 5106 Highway #7, Porter’s Lake and The Halifax Compassionate Club at 764 East Chezzetcook Road, Head of Chezzetcook, all used the same telephone number (902) 495- 0420. In fact, business cards contained in Det/Const. Stanley’s Affidavit [Exhibit 11] at tab 17 contained business cards with that one telephone number for those three entities.

The Halifax Compassionate Club card also had the words “Sherri Reeve President” printed above its email address. [ 92 ] After more questions on this issue, Counsel prepared an agreed statement of fact which was filed as Exhibit 2. With respect to the phone number for those businesses, the parties agreed that Ms. Reeve answered calls at that phone number and would tell people who called that phone number where to find safe access and/or a dispensary.

A second agreed fact was that, on September 5, 2014, Sherri Reeve told the police that she would sometimes come to “watch the shop” – in other words, take over for someone else who was working at the Farm Assists at 2300 Gottingen Street. [ 93 ] After reaching that agreement, Counsel for the Respondent drew Ms. Reeve’s attention to Det/Const. Stanley’s Affidavit [Exhibit 11] at tab #1 which is a copy of receipt #33 from the “Sales Book” with the name of the vendor stamped at the top being “THCC Farm Assists, (902) 495-0420.” dated March 13, 2013.

The receipt, which is dated March 13, 2013, confirms that the person, who was named on that receipt, had purchased several different cannabis strains, including: 10 g of “Jack Herer” at a total cost of $80, 5 g of “G13” at a total cost of $36.25, 5 g of “White Russian” at a total cost of $40, 5 g of “Ultimate Indica” at a total cost of $40, 5 g of “LSD” at a total cost of $35 and finally 5 g of “Durga Mata” at a total cost of $40. The grand total for those purchases was $291.25. [ 94 ] Following that, Counsel for the Respondent asked Ms. Reeve to turn to the Affidavit of Sgt.

Mike Strickland [Exhibit 10, at tab 1] which had a series of photographs taken during the search of the Farm Assists “storefront” located at 2320 Gottingen Street in Halifax. He drew Ms. Reeve’s attention to photographs numbered 27- 29 which show a table in a back room of the store with a tray on the table with a label entitled “The Farm Assists” and beneath those words, the label reads “Production – Dispensary – Delivery (902) 495-0420.” Ms. Reeve stated that it is the same tray from the Porters Lake store, and she identified it by the label as well as the tray itself. Ms.

Reeve also agreed that the phone number on that label was the one that she would sometimes answer and provide advice. [ 95 ] In addition. those photographs show two Mason jars containing cannabis strains – one half full with a label “Purple Kush” and the other jar essentially full with a label “Black Diamond.” In front of the tray with those two Mason jars of cannabis strains, there are clear empty plastic bags in the tray and a digital scale with what appears to be a measuring scoop right beside it. [ 96 ] With respect to questions about the warehouse located at 30 Colford Drive in Head of Chezzetcook, Nova Scotia, Ms.

Reeve confirmed that Mr. Enns had a Designated Person Production Licence (DPPL) to grow cannabis plants at the warehouse for two people. [ 97 ] Ms. Reeve was then asked to review the corporate business filings from the Registry of Joint Stock Companies of Nova Scotia for two numbered business organizations, at tab H of Madeleine Maclellan’s Affidavit [Exhibit 9]. The first one is 3247317 Nova Scotia Limited for which Mr. Christopher Enns is listed as the President, Director, and Recognized Agent with his civic address being 764 E.

Chezzetcook Road, with a related registration being The Farm Assists Cannabis Resource Centre. The copy of the information indicates that the company was incorporated and registered on July 29, 2010. [ 98 ] The other numbered company is 3259147 Nova Scotia Limited which was incorporated and registered with the Registry of Joint Stock Companies on December 12, 2011. For this second company, Mr. Chris Enns is also listed as the President, Director and Recognized Agent with Mr. Tyler Julien being listed as the Secretary and as a Director.

The related company registration to this numbered company is the Grow-Op Shop Indoor Gardening and Hydroponic Supplies.

[ 99 ] Ms. Reeve was then asked to turn to Det/Const. Stanley’s Affidavit [Exhibit 11] at tab 20 where there is a document entitled “Colford Bill Review”, which lists the total amounts paid for services provided at the Colford warehouse. Ms. Reeve said that she had “no clue” with respect to the holding company for the Colford warehouse, but the document lists the total annual costs for that building being $115,815. The largest amounts relate to $37,120 for HRM property taxes, $45,000 for NSPI’s power bill and building insurance in the amount of $14,500. [ 100 ] In his Affidavit, Det/Const.

Stanley stated that “Colford Bill Review” and the Registry of Joint Stock Companies registrations were found in the house occupied by Ms. Reeve and Mr. Enns located at 764 E. Chezzetcook Road, Head of Chezzetcook. The document also indicates that those annual bills for the Colford warehouse are divided three ways between a shareholder advance, Chris Enns and Mark, last name unknown. [ 101 ] As the cross examination continued, Counsel for the Respondent posed a question based upon para. 3 of Ms.

Reeve’s Affidavit [Exhibit 1] that about nine years ago, she became licensed by Health Canada to grow, store, and use cannabis to treat her arthritis. Since this question was posed in court in June 2019, Counsel asked if her cannabis plants had been grown since 2009 or 2010 at the warehouse located at 30 Colford. Ms.

Reeve was not sure of the exact date when she first got the Health Canada licence, but stated that her personal cannabis plants were grown at the warehouse at 30 Colford and her patient’s plants were grown “somewhere else.” [ 102 ] Moving forward to 2014, Counsel for the Respondent asked if there were other persons at the 30 Colford Drive warehouse who would have been tending to the plants and equipment. Ms. Reeve replied “probably” and when asked whether they were employees, she said no, but there were other people who had “grows” there. Ms.

Reeve stated that she had “no idea” if there were other persons with “grows” at the Colford Drive warehouse in previous years to 2011- 2013. [ 103 ] Counsel then showed Ms. Reeve the supplementary Affidavit of Gordon Giffin, who was the Exhibit Officer at the search of the warehouse located at unit 2-30 Colford Dr. in East Chezzetcook. Nova Scotia and took a video of the search. Const. Giffin’s Supplementary Affidavit was marked as Exhibit 13 and contained several printouts of screen captures from the video that he had taken at the time of the search by police officers at the warehouse.

The more detailed documenting of items located during the search including photographs of those items was in Const. Giffin’s affidavit marked as Exhibit 12. [ 104 ] With respect to Exhibit 13, Counsel asked Ms. Reeve to look at the photograph at page 9, which has columns listed as Date, Name, Task, and Hours, with the names of Jesse, Sonia, Chris, Steve on it. The dates listed on that sheet start at August 23 and the last entry appears to be on September 4.

She agreed that the sheet does contain various names, the tasks performed, the hours it took and in many cases the time when the tasks were performed but stated that it is not her handwriting. Ms. Reeve added that she did not remember seeing the document and then stated: “I’ve never – I don’t think I’ve ever seen this.” [ 105 ] Following that, Counsel asked Ms. Reeve to look at the receipts photocopied at tab 12 of Det/Const. Stanley’s affidavit [Exhibit 11].

With respect to the receipt dated April 22, 2014 in the amount of $3000 with the word “paid” and then after the word “for” on the receipt form, the words “growing services and medical herb for 2013” are printed above her signature and the printed name “Sherri Reeve” below that signature. Ms. Reeve was asked whether the words “medical herb” was a reference to cannabis and her response was that it could be clones or it could be anything.

When asked if clones meant marijuana cannabis plants, she replied: “it could be seeds, it could be anything.” [ 106 ] Prior to Counsel for the Respondent asking a further question about that receipt contained in Exhibit 11 at tab 12, Ms. Reeve pointed out that it does not have a name on it, so she did not know who it was to and she asked herself a rhetorical question: “is this something that was paid to me, or I paid to someone else? Received from who?” She then added that there was no name on it and that she was trying to figure it out.

However, she did confirm that she sees her signature, but it was five years ago. Once again, she confirmed that it was her signature but could not tell more about it because the “received from” line of the receipt is empty. Once again, although she saw her signature on the receipt, she had “no clue” what it is for because there was no name on it. But, when Counsel asked whether “medical herb” refers to something with respect to cannabis, her answer was “it could be, well, probably.” [ 107 ] Following those questions with respect to that receipt dated April 22, 2014, Counsel asked Ms.

Reeve to turn to tab 14 in Exhibit 11 on the second page which also has copies of receipts in the amount of $3000 on each receipt, marked “paid” both appearing to be dated April 25, 2014. Following the word “for”, one of the receipts reads “growing services and medical herb for 2011” and the other one has “growing services and medical herb for 2012.” [ 108 ] At the bottom of each one of those two receipts is the printed word “Sherri Reeve” with a stylized signature just above her name. Ms.

Reeve looked at those two receipts, and stated, once again, that those receipts were definitely signed by her with her printed name below the signature and because it is the same amount “I would assume it might be the same person every time.” However, once again, Ms. Reeve stated that she either had “no idea what they’re for” and when asked again, she had “no clue.” [ 109 ] On re-examination, Ms. Reeve confirmed that her Personal Use Production Licence-Dried Marijuana For Medical Purposes issued pursuant to

section 29 of the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) attached as Exhibit A to her Affidavit [Exhibit 1] was the licence that was in effect in 2014. She had previously had other PUPL’s.

The licence confirmed that the production site is 2-30 Colford Dr., Head of Chezzetcook, Nova Scotia, the production is indoor and that the maximum number of marijuana plants that she may have under her production at the production site pursuant to the PUPL was 195 plants (indoor) and 0 plants (outdoor). [ 110 ] She also confirmed that her PUPL storage site was identified in that licence which was issued on May 24, 2013 as being 764 E. Chezzetcook Rd., Head of Chezzetcook, Nova Scotia.

The storage quantities listed on the PUPL allowed her to store the maximum quantity of dried marijuana at the storage site, indoors, as being 8775 g. Ms. Reeve confirmed that the address mentioned for the storage site was where she stored her harvested cannabis. [ 111 ] She confirmed that the cannabis harvested was used by herself medically and that she understood that the PUPL only allowed her to grow and use it for herself. Ms. Reeve confirmed that she could not share the cannabis from those 195 plants with anyone else. Ms. Reeve stated that she complied with those rules.

[ 112 ] After some discussions relating to the scope of re-examination, the parties agreed that, notwithstanding the fact that Exhibit A to Ms. Reeve’s Affidavit stated that its expiry date was May 24, 2014, her PUPL was still valid on September 5, 2014 when the police conducted the raid and seized the cannabis plants from the Colford Drive warehouse. [ 113 ] The parties agreed that, based upon the Allard decision, an injunction was issued that allowed the PUPL’s then, in existence, to continue forward.

Counsel for the Applicant confirmed that, as the result of the Allard decision, the licence providing that an individual could have a 30 day supply of their cannabis in storage continued, but was shifted to a maximum of 150 g on your person unless the person transporting it from the place where it was grown to the place where it would be stored.

Summary of the Respondent’s Evidence: [ 114 ] Undercover officer “A” attended on four occasions at the Farm Assists storefront located at 2320 Gottingen Street to purchase marijuana. On the first occasion, August 21, 2014, the officer went to the Farm Assists store, and they mentioned that they had seen the store’s advertisement in Leafly, that if you mentioned seeing that ad, the purchaser would get 1 g of “bud” for free. The male behind the counter said that was still the deal and asked the officer if they had a licence.

The officer said yes, I have one and then, the man at the counter said the owner would be out shortly. [ 115 ] Soon after, a tall man about 6’3” tall with long brown hair came out of the back area and introduced himself as Chris and invited the officer to come to the back area.

The officer showed him the license, Chris glanced at it for two or three seconds, handed it back to the officer and then he took the officer back to what he called the “lounge area” at the back of the store. [ 116 ] At the back of the store, there was a little table and on it there were four large Mason jars with different types of marijuana bud in them. Chris opened them up and let the officer smell them. The officer picked 2 g from one jar and 1 g from another jar and was told that they could pick another one as the free gram.

The bill came to $18, so the officer gave Chris a $20 bill and received two dollars change and left the building. After leaving the building, the cannabis was turned over to an Exhibit Officer. [ 117 ] On the second occasion which was the next day, undercover officer “A” had the same instructions, go to the Farm Assists store on Gottingen Street and purchase a couple of grams of cannabis. On this occasion, the officer recalled that Chris had said “thanks Jason” the previous day, when he came out of the back and so, on this second occasion, the officer said hello to Jason and asked if Chris was around.

Jason said yes, but there are a couple of people ahead of you. [ 118 ] While the officer was buying a T-shirt at the front of the store, Chris came out of the back area and motioned the officer to come to the back area. There were now five Mason jars of weed in the back room. Chris said it is still the same amount but “two are the purple Kush.” The officer said that they liked the ones that were purchased the previous day.

Initially, Chris did not recall seeing the officer the previous day but did not ask to see any licence on this occasion. [ 119 ] Like the previous day, the officer purchased 2 g of marijuana at $6 per gram from Chris and gave him a $20 bill for the $12 cost. The purchase was turned over to the Exhibit Officer. [ 120 ] On the third occasion (Wednesday, August 27, 2014), the officer went to the Farm Assists store at 2320 Gottingen Street to purchase 10 g of marijuana. On this occasion, Jason was behind the counter and the officer asked if Chris was around.

The officer was told that Chris would be in later and went with Jason to the back area. Jason asked if the officer had their card with them. The officer said yes and went to pull it out, but Jason said there was no need to see it, if the purchaser had it with them. On this occasion, Jason said that they only had two types of cannabis in the Mason jars and so, the officer purchased 7 g of Chocolope and 3 g of CBD Sharp.

The total cost was $60, the officer paid Jason, left the store, and gave the cannabis to an Exhibit Officer. [ 121 ] The officer confirmed that there were no questions asked or any suggestion made by the officer that they were a cancer patient on any of those purchases. [ 122 ] On a fourth occasion, on August 28, 2014, undercover officer “A”, went again to the Farm Assists store on Gottingen Street, to purchase one ounce of marijuana. For this purchase, the officer was given $200 and then went to the store and asked if Chris was around.

Jason told the officer that Chris was with someone but would be available shortly. A few minutes later, Chris, referring to Christopher Enns, came out and the two of them went into the back room. The officer said that they would like to purchase an ounce. Chris said it would be $180 for 30 g and did not ask to see the licence.

Chris put the marijuana in a measuring cup and weighed 30 g on a scale on the table and then put the cannabis purchased in a “smelly proof bag.” The officer paid cash, left and gave the cannabis to the Exhibit Officer. [ 123 ] On cross-examination, the officer confirmed that they had been trained on how to safely purchase cannabis and that cannabis is a plant and different strains have different smells.

The officer was aware, from their training, that there are medical exemptions to purchase cannabis and confirmed that they had a Health Canada Medical Cannabis licence which was prepared for this investigation. [ 124 ] When the officer went into the Farm Assists Store, they were looking to see if Mr. Enns was there in order to interact with him as part of the investigation.

The officer stated that they did not know Sherri Reeve and that, on the four occasions that they bought cannabis from the storefront, they never saw a woman in the store behind the counter. [ 125 ] The officer confirmed that, on their first occasion in the Farm Assists storefront, they did show the Health Canada license to Mr. Enns. The officer confirmed that in the backroom there was a card table with Mason jars on the shelf, but they could not estimate how many grams were in each one of them, although the four or five jars were either full or half full.

There were also other things to purchase in the front area such as bongs, papers and other stuff. The officer confirmed that there was a very strong smell of “fresh marijuana” when you walked in the store. [ 126 ] The officer confirmed that, on none of the four occasions when they purchased cannabis, they did not recall seeing Sherri Reeve at the Farm Assists Store. In addition, there was no mention in their notes that she was present.

[ 127 ] A second undercover officer “B” was called by the Respondent to answer questions on cross-examination. The undercover officer had previously provided an affidavit [Exhibit 3] in accordance with the agreement of counsel that the affidavit would essentially replace direct examination. For this officer, as well as undercover officer “A”, for their safety and security, the Court put a publication ban on any communications that would name or identify them. [ 128 ] Undercover officer “B” was tasked, on September 3 and 4, 2014, to purchase 2 to 3 g of each kind of marijuana available.

The objective on the second visit was to purchase 30 g of marijuana. In the officer’s affidavit, it was confirmed that the officer had a document that appeared to be a Health Canada “Authorization to Possess” dried marijuana for medical purposes. It was made out in a false name with an expiry date for that licence being May 28, 2014. Prior to going to the Farm Assists Store, the officer was provided with $20 bills and the serial numbers of those bills were recorded in the officer’s notebook. [ 129 ] On September 3, 2014, the officer went to the Farm Assists store at 2320 Gottingen Street and recognized Ms.

Reeve as she came from the back area to the front of the store. She asked how she could help. The officer told Ms. Reeve that a friend had said that they could get their prescription filled there. Ms. Reeve asked if the officer had a licence, the response was “yes” and after that Ms. Reeve asked the officer to follow her behind a wall to the “smoking area.” [ 130 ] The officer was asked to wait until Jason was finished with another customer and while waiting, they saw three persons in the smoking area.

The officer overheard the comments of a female and a male in the smoking area who were talking with Sherri Reeve about business that they had with the store and the payment they were going to make in the amount of $170. [ 131 ] A few moments later, the officer explained to Jason that they wanted to buy a couple of grams of each strain and whether the store was still offering the free gram promotion from the webpage. Jason agreed, proceeded to weigh out and explain each of the four strains of marijuana available. Jason told the officer that it was $48 for the 4 g.

The officer paid with three $20 bills and received $12 change. The officer said that they would return after trying the strains. After leaving the store the officer turned over the bag of marijuana to the Exhibit Officer. [ 132 ] The next day on September 4, 2014, the officer went back to the store with ten $20 bills whose serial numbers had been previously recorded. A different person was at the counter and the officer explained that they were back after having made a purchase the previous day.

The officer was escorted to the “smoking area” by Jason. [ 133 ] On the way to the back of the store, the officer told Jason that the “Pink Elephant” that had been purchased the previous day was great, but Jason said that he was out of that and would not have any more until “Chris” came back. Jason suggested “Purple Kush” and pulled out a Mason jar labelled “Purple Kush.” The officer told Jason that they wanted to purchase 30 g. Jason replied that it was $6 a gram, weighed out 30 g and then placed it into a “smelly proof” bag. [ 134 ] The officer placed $180 in cash on the table and left the store.

The officer was not asked to show any ID at any point, during this visit to the Farm Assists store on September 4, 2014. The “smelly proof” bag with the marijuana was turned over to the Exhibit Officer, Const. Gordon Giffin. [ 135 ] On cross-examination, undercover officer “B” confirmed that they had been provided with a “false licence” which was an Authorization to Possess Cannabis issued by Health Canada in a false name and that the officer had a false ID to match the name on the licence. On September 3, 2014, the officer arrived at the Farm Assists store on Gottingen Street around 3 o’clock.

At no time did the officer feel unsafe and stated that the people inside were “absolutely friendly.” [ 136 ] The officer confirmed that, on the first occasion in the storefront, that it was Sherri Reeve who came to the front counter from the back area and added that she was “very accommodating” during their brief exchange. She took the officer into the back “smoking” room behind the counter and that is where the officer overheard the male and a female speaking with Ms. Reeve. Once the officer was seated in that back area with Jason, Ms.

Reeve went back to the front of the store and never provided any cannabis to the officer or offered any cannabis to the officer. [ 137 ] The officer did confirm that upon entering the store, Ms. Reeve did ask if they had a licence and they had answered “yes”, but she did not ask to see it. When the officer met with Jason, he did ask to see the licence, then briefly looked at it and the officer’s ID card and then sold the cannabis to the officer. [ 138 ] On September 4, 2014, undercover officer “B” made a second visit to the Farm Assists Store around 1:30 PM.

The purpose of the visit was to purchase 30 g of cannabis. Jason remembered that the officer had been in the store the day before and after a female left in the back area, they went into the back area of the store. The odour in the building was of fresh cannabis as well as stale smoked cannabis. The previous day, Jason had introduced the officer to the “Pink Elephant” strain of marijuana, but Jason said that none was available that day until Chris returned from BC.

As a result, Jason recommended that the officer purchase the “Purple Kush” strain and the officer left with 30 g of it, as recommended by Jason. [ 139 ] The next witness called by the Respondent was Mr. Mark Grenon. Mr. Grenon’s curriculum vitae was filed as Exhibit 4 on this application. [ 140 ] Mr.

Grenon’s CV confirmed that he has several professional designations, which include being a Chartered Accountant, a Chartered Professional Accountant, a Chartered Accountant specialist designation in Investigative and Forensic Accounting [a CA*IFA designation], Certified in Financial Forensic [CFF] designation and a Certified Fraud Examiner [CFE] designation. Mr. Grenon had been previously qualified as and provided testimony as an expert witness in several different Ontario and Québec courts.

He understood that his responsibility was to provide fair, objective and impartial information and opinions in response to questions posed by counsel or the Court. [ 141 ] Following questions by both counsel and the Court, Mr. Grenon’s qualifications to provide expert evidence with respect to forensic accounting and accounting generally, with respect to the financial activities of Mr. Christopher Enns and certain other related companies between January 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013. In particular, he had analyzed the sales receipts from the Halifax

Compassionate Club (THCC) also known as “Farm Assists” during that period, which were the areas for which the Respondent had sought to have Mr Grenon qualified as an expert witness. Those areas were set out and filed in Exhibit 5. [ 142 ] In addition, prior to Mr. Grenon testifying in court, two reports which had been prepared by him were filed in court as Exhibit 6, entitled “Project Enns”, dated June 30, 2016 and a second report entitled “Sherri Reeve – Cannabis Market Price Analysis”, dated July 20, 2017, which was filed in court as Exhibit 7. [ 143 ] At the outset of his examination, Mr.

Grenon confirmed that he analysed each one of the receipts that were in booklets as shown in Det/Const. Stanley’s Affidavit [Exhibit 11 at tab 1] which shows the cover of a sales book and a couple of examples from a sales book on March 13, 2013. He noted that one receipt listed the product purchased, its cost and the name of the purchaser. A second receipt had the sam

[…]