[71] Of marked significance, the Crown called no evidence, expert or otherwise, to challenge any of the evidence called by the applicants regarding the toxic drug crisis, measures taken to respond to it, safer supply programs including proposed non-medicalized programs, or DULF’s Compassion Club. The Crown’s witnesses, all employees of Health Canada, testified about the interplay between the CDSA and FDA and the process under the FDA regime for market authorization. … 245] The Crown did not plead justification in its outline of position and dedicated a single paragraph of written argument to the issue of s 1, stating that “the dismissal of the s 7 challenge also supports the rational connection and minimal impairment tests”: Crown Submissions at para 135. With respect, considering my findings that s 5(2) of the CDSA infringes both ss 7 and 15 of the Charter and that the impugned provision is both overbroad and grossly disproportionate, and given that the burden is on the Crown to establish that the infringement was justified under s 1, I find that it has not met this burden.

This makes my skin crawl The prosecution of dulf makes sense now, Eby did it so they could challenge the law and then have the courts declare it unconstitutional