I wonder how many guys are reading this today and are like,"My wives are gunna be upset about this..."
On a more serious note, this is crazy talk. It's like drug prohibition. Drug use, like polygamy, should not be considered a crime, in my opinion. If you're consenting and rational, you should be able to participate in either.
After writing this far, I was pointed to section 772 of the ruling:
The use of marihuana is therefore a proper subject matter for the exercise of the criminal law power. Butler held, at p. 504, that if there is a reasoned apprehension of harm Parliament is entitled to act, and in our view Parliament is also entitled to act on reasoned apprehension of harm even if on some points "the jury is still out". In light of the concurrent findings of "harm" in the courts below, we therefore confirm that the NCA in general, and the scheduling of marihuana in particular, properly fall within Parliament's legislative competence under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
We do not agree with Prowse J.A. that harm must be shown to the court's satisfaction to be "serious" and "substantial" before Parliament can impose a prohibition. Once it is demonstrated, as it has been here, that the harm is not de minimis, or in the words of Braidwood J.A., the harm is "not [in]significant or trivial", the precise weighing and calculation of the nature and extent of the harm is Parliament's job. Members of Parliament are elected to make these sorts of decisions, and have access to a broader range of information, more points of view, and a more flexible investigative process than courts do. A "serious and substantial" standard of review would involve the courts in micromanagement of Parliament's agenda. The relevant constitutional control is not micromanagement but the general principle that the parliamentary response must not be grossly disproportionate to the state interest sought to be protected, as will be discussed.
This sets a very dangerous precedent.
We don't make driving cars illegal because most people suck at driving. It will be interesting the next time someone challenges a more popularly accepted activity such as driving.
Let's make sure we're properly addressing what we deem as crimes, crimes with effective repercussions, instead of making anything remotely on the periphery of a crime, illegal.
 The Attorneys General submit that the evidence suggests that insofar as Muslims are concerned, polygamy is purely optional. As such, it cannot be seriously argued that the interference with the individual’s freedom of religion is serious in such cases. The adherent is not faced with a stark choice between compliance with the dictates of his or her faith or compliance with the law.
 With respect to fundamentalist Mormons, the case is rather more complex, as there is evidence that, at least doctrinally, some individuals sincerely believe that they must practice polygamy as part of their religion. However, the evidence also suggests that many members of fundamentalist Mormon communities can, and do, choose to live monogamously without running afoul of their religious beliefs.
Removing the consent part of a conjugal relationship stands out to me as the logical place where a crime has been committed. Again, forcing someone into a conjugal relationship is the crime, having multiple, consenting partners is not.