Article content continued

“You cannot say on this record that the majority of physicians in Canada are opposed to the MMAR… It’s mere speculation,” Mr. Michaelson said.

The MMAR require any patient seeking access to medical marijuana to obtain a signed declaration from a doctor. During his trial, Mr. Mernagh brought forward about two dozen seriously ill witnesses who said they encountered major difficulties in finding a doctor who would sign a declaration, prompting Judge Taliano to cite an “overwhelming refusal” by Canadian physicians to participate in the scheme.

Mr. Michaelson contended that finding was groundless, noting between 1998 and 2010, the number of doctors signing declarations each year rose to more than 2,000 from fewer than 10. No evidence was adduced at trial, however, to indicate how many Canadian residents with valid medical needs requested and were denied a medical marijuana prescription, leaving a contextual gap.

Mr. Michaelson said the trial judge made numerous errors by relying on inadmissible evidence, misapprehending the legal effect of previous amendments to the MMAR and having improper regard for the opinions of treating physicians.

“The trial judge essentially substituted his opinion for the opinions of the doctors,” Mr. Michaelson contended.

Lawyer Paul Lewin, who represents Mr. Mernagh, said the trial judge got it right, calling the case an issue of fundamental liberty.

“When you’re really sick, you should be able to decide if [marijuana] is what you want,” Mr. Lewin told the court, noting many patients are currently forced to go doctor-shopping in order to find one willing to sign a declaration. He called for an overhaul of the MMAR, possibly by creating a registry of physicians educated about the potential benefits and drawbacks of marijuana.