# DULF ruling strikes at possession-for-trafficking law—but does not immediately legalize drug dealing

**NewsForBC | Courts and public accountability | Updated October 22, 2026**

*Justice Catherine Murray declared a federal drug-law provision unconstitutional, suspended that declaration for six months and granted personal stays to the two compassion-club founders.*

A B.C. Supreme Court ruling has opened a major constitutional challenge to Canada's drug-control framework. But describing it simply as a court striking down “trafficking laws against hard drugs” leaves out distinctions essential to understanding what has changed—and what has not.

In **R v Kalicum, 2026 BCSC 1855**, released September 29, Justice Catherine Murray declared **section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act** unconstitutional. That provision prohibits possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking. She suspended the declaration for six months and ordered stays for DULF co-founders Jeremy Kalicum and Eris Nyx. [1, paragraphs 251–257]

The distinction matters: **section 5(1), the separate trafficking prohibition, was not struck down by this order.** Nor did the judge immediately switch off section 5(2) for everybody. The general declaration is suspended, while the founders received individual constitutional relief. [1, paragraph 257; 2]

## What the court actually ordered

The final paragraph of the judgment contains three orders:

- Section 5(2) is declared of no force or effect because it unjustifiably infringes Charter sections 7 and 15.
- That declaration is suspended for six months from the order's date.
- The convictions against Kalicum and Nyx are stayed under Charter section 24(1). [1, paragraph 257]

The declaration is **not worded as a compassion-club-only exemption**, and the judge explicitly rejected the Crown's request to restrict it to heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine. The breadth of the order deserves scrutiny. So do the suspension and the untouched trafficking provision; neither should disappear from a headline. [1, paragraphs 251–254; 2]

The ruling should not be treated as permission to open an unlicensed drug-selling operation. It does not grant a general Health Canada exemption, repeal the entire drug statute or eliminate the separate food-and-drug regulatory regime. [1, paragraphs 9–10, 16–26, 252–257]

## Why the founders won the Charter challenge

Murray had previously found Kalicum and Nyx guilty on November 7, 2025. The constitutional reasons explain that convictions were held in abeyance while the Charter challenge proceeded. The later ruling therefore did not find that the drug-possession conduct had never occurred; it provided a constitutional remedy. [1, paragraphs 1, 64–65, 255–257]

DULF's model involved buying heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, testing and labelling them, and selling them at cost to screened adult members already using illicit drugs. It operated outside the medical system, without prescriptions or medical oversight. [1, paragraphs 4–5, 37–48]

The court found an urgent need for non-medicalized safer supply, no legal source of drugs for that model and no legally and practically available regulatory route capable of exempting it. On the evidentiary record before her, Murray found DULF reduced toxic-drug harms without negatively affecting community or public safety. Those are findings in this case—not a guarantee that every proposed drug-distribution program would be safe. [1, paragraph 249]

The reasons also use **“safer supply,” not “safe supply”**, explaining that no illicit drug is safe. [1, paragraph 36]

## A question for federal prosecutors: what evidence defended the law?

The judgment identifies an important accountability issue beyond the judge's conclusions. Murray said the Crown called no evidence to challenge the applicants' evidence about the toxic-drug crisis, safer-supply measures or the DULF club. She did **not** say the Crown called no witnesses at all: Health Canada witnesses addressed the regulatory framework and market-authorization process. [1, paragraphs 71–72]

At the justification stage, the judge said the Crown had not pleaded a section 1 justification in its outline of position and devoted a single paragraph of written argument to it. She found the Crown had not met its burden. [1, paragraphs 245–248]

That supports a concrete question for Ottawa: what evidentiary and legal case will it put forward to defend or change the framework? It does not establish bad faith, collusion or misconduct by prosecutors or the judge.

## Political criticism is not an appeal judgment

CBC reported that Mike Farnworth called for a federal appeal, while Elenore Sturko criticized the implications of dark-web drug purchases. CBC also reported that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada was reviewing the decision and had 30 days to decide whether to appeal. Those are reported reactions, not a filed appeal or an appellate ruling. [3]

**October 22 update:** no notice of appeal, appellate decision or later stay/extension order was verified in the public official sources reviewed. This is a verification limit, not proof that no appeal has been filed. The Court of Appeal’s public recent-judgments list and federal prosecution newsroom are not complete filing dockets; this review does not claim a registry search. [6–7]

On October 3, Canadian Bar Association B.C. Branch president Connor Bildfell issued a statement specifically about commentary on this case. He defended careful scrutiny and vigorous debate of court decisions while objecting to personal attacks on the judge's character or fitness. That is a professional association's position, not an appellate decision validating the ruling. [5]

## What to watch next

The key records are a filed notice of appeal, any order changing the suspension, and a federal legislative or regulatory response. Murray allowed the Crown to seek more time if needed; the six-month period is not immune to a further court order. [1, paragraph 254]

The public-interest question is how Parliament can address the Charter findings while retaining effective controls against harmful trafficking. Readers can disagree strongly with the remedy while still discussing its actual wording rather than an immediate, blanket legalization that the judgment does not order.

### Source note

The supplied Facebook share exposed only a public metadata excerpt describing a “crazy decision” and saying the court struck down trafficking laws. The full post, its author, date and image were not captured; its wording is treated as a lead, not evidence. This article is based principally on the court's full official reasons and the federal statute.

### Sources

1. [B.C. Supreme Court — R v Kalicum, 2026 BCSC 1855, September 29, 2026](https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/26/18/2026BCSC1855.htm). Official reasons, retrieved in full for the original review. The publication refresh cross-checked official-page extraction and the preserved judgment. A fresh direct HTTP request returned the court’s “Judgment Not Found” page; that access limitation is not evidence that the reasons have been withdrawn.
2. [Justice Laws — Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, section 5](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-38.8/section-5.html). Official statute page; separate subsections (1) and (2) rechecked for publication.
3. [CBC — Judge tosses drug trafficking convictions for B.C. compassion club founders after constitutional challenge](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-supreme-court-ruling-dulf-constitutional-challenge-9.7362274). Mainstream reporting, including political and PPSC responses; article text obtained through web extraction.
4. [Supplied Facebook lead](https://www.facebook.com/share/1CDKo5oAqd/?mibextid=wwXIfr). Public metadata only; not a verified transcript of the full post.
5. [CBABC — Statement from President Connor Bildfell on Judicial Independence](https://cbabc.org/news/statement-from-cbabc-president-connor-bildfell-on-judicial-independence). October 3, 2026; professional association response concerning R. v. Kalicum.

6. [B.C. Court of Appeal — Recent judgments](https://www.bccourts.ca/court_of_appeal/recent_Judgments.aspx). Displayed releases through October 22 reviewed; not a complete appeal-filing docket.
7. [Public Prosecution Service of Canada — 2026 newsroom](https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/nws-nvs/2026/index.html). No Kalicum appeal announcement verified in the displayed releases; silence is not proof no appeal was filed.

**Related court source trail:** [Justice Catherine Murray and the DULF ruling at CanadianJudges.ca](https://canadianjudges.ca/blog/catherine-murray-dulf-kalicum-charter-ruling-source-trail-2026-10-22/).

*No allegation or finding of judicial misconduct. General reporting, not legal advice.*