use of the drug. 2000: R. v. Parker (Ontario Court of Appeal) R. v. Parker was the landmark decision that first invalidated the cannabis prohibition. However the declaration of invalidity was suspended for one year. It concerned the case of an epileptic who could only alleviate his suffering by recourse to cannabis. The Court found that the prohibition on cannabis was unconstitutional as it did not contain any exemption for medical use. 2003: R. v. J.P. (Ontario Court of Appeal) On 16 May 2003, the Ontario Superior Court found the accused party, "J.P.", not guilty. The appellate court ruled that the Medical Marihuana program's rules do not form a basis for the prosecution of J.P., as they do not themselves contain any effective prohibitions. The Crown appealed the decision of the Ontario Superior Court to the Ontario Court of Appeal. But in October 2003, the Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of section four of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as it applies to cannabis, on the same grounds as those given by the lower court. The court stated in its ruling: 2003: R v Malmo‑Levine; R v Caine (Supreme Court of Canada) In late 2003, in R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a general constitutional challenge to Canada's criminalization of marijuana possession, brought under the Constitution Act, 1867 and under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of the appellants had been convicted in the lower courts of simple possession of marihuana, while the other had been convicted of possession for the purposes of trafficking. If they had succeeded in their challenge, the cannabis law would have been struck down entirely, unlike the more limited challenges based on the medical use of marihuana. The appellants argued that the federal Parliament lacked the authority to criminalize marihuana possession. They also challenged the offence under three sections of the Charter: s. 7 (liberty and principles of fundamental justice), s. 12 (cruel and unusual treatment and punishment) and s. 15 (equality). On the first point, they argued that the criminalization of marihuana did not come within the federal criminal law jurisdiction. With respect to s. 7 of the Charter, they argued that the right to liberty and the principles of fundamental justice protected by s. 7 included a "harm principle": that the federal criminal law power can only be used to criminalize harmful conduct.