— s. 7(2)(b)( vi): a three-year mandatory minimum sentence if
the number of plants produced is more than 500 and any of
the statutory aggravating factors described in s. 7(3) apply.
 The only statutory aggravating factor at issue on these
appeals is s. 7(3)(c), which states: “the production constituted
a potential public safety hazard in a residential area”.
D. The Regulatory Regimes
 Since before the convicted parties were arrested until
now, there have been three different regulatory regimes authorizing the production of medical marijuana: ( i) the Marihuana
Medical Access Regulations, SOR/2001-227 (“MMAR”); ( ii) the
Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119
(“MMPR”); and ( iii) the current regime, the Access to Cannabis
for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2016-230 (“ACMPR”).
 The regulatory regimes authorizing production of medical
marijuana are relevant to this appeal because they prescribe the
circumstances under which marijuana can lawfully be produced
and therefore impact the reach of the law when considering
whether the law constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in
reasonably foreseeable circumstances.
 However, as will be explained below, for the purposes of
this appeal it is unnecessary to examine the various regulatory
regimes in detail. It will suffice to explain that while each
regime licensed the production of medical marijuana they
authorized production in different circumstances and by different parties.
 On the dates the convicted parties were arrested,2
the MMAR were in effect. Although the MMAR have been superseded, some MMAR licences were preserved by injunction proceedings in the Federal Court,3 and the Crown has confirmed
that some MMAR licences continue to exist.4
2 Mr. Vu was arrested on November 12, 2012; Ms. Pham on February 28,
2013; and Mr. Li on May 18, 2013.
3 In March 2014, the Federal Court issued an injunction that exempted persons from the repeal of the MMAR, allowing both PPL and DPL licence-holders to continue to produce marijuana for medical purposes: Allard v.
Canada,  F.C.J. No. 412, 2014 FC 280, 451 F. T.R. 45, affd  F.C.J.
No. 1241, 2014 FCA 298, 324 C.R.R. (2d) 78 (the “Allard injunction”).
4 Following the hearing, the panel sought further submissions from the parties on certain issues. As part of those submissions, the Crown tendered
fresh evidence confirming that the Allard injunction has preserved some
MMAR licences. Individuals who were previously authorized to possess