i just got off the phone with John Turmel and he told me something that blew my mind.
i have applied to the SCoC for Leave to Appeal so we have the right to change addresses and update script amounts and such. i had to go to the SCoC because the lower court said I could not appeal because I am not a member or plaintiff so I am not entitled. i thought that this "represented" a larger group so I would have standing. JT told me that Conroy pulled out from filing as a class action and only made this case for his 4 plaintiffs....does anyone know anything about Allard being a class action or not??
Hi all, have lurked for a long time but hearing this misinformation for the nth time finally drove me to register
This is NOT true. A 'class action' is generally in reference to civil litigation. It means that everyone who suffered the same damage is entitled to a 'piece' of the compensation. If I bought a lexus and the ejector seat activates when you reach 88mph, everyone affected by that is part of the 'class'. This is why the privacy breach is a 'class action'.
A constitutional challenge is a court case against legislation that a party considers invalid due to the constitution / Charter being the 'supreme' law of Canada in that if something the govt passes is not consistent with the Charter, it is considered invalid or 'of no force and effect'.
The plaintiffs in Allard are considered 'representative' (this has been confirmed many times in the case documentation), in that they correspond to people in similar situations. Otherwise you would have every MMAR person who has been affected by the alleged irreparable harm caused by the MMPR.
Turmel does some good work but he is very incorrect in a lot of what he says. Please don't repeat this misinformation. He takes every opportunity available to generally act like a 12 year old and call Conroy a shyster in spite of the fact that it was Conroy who got the injunction.
A final note about the injunction, it seems to be perceived that it's meant to cover absolutely everyone and completely invalidate the MMPR, which is not the intention. An interlocutory motion is meant to prevent irreparable harm pending a hearing on the merits of a case at trial, and the balance of convenience analysis is very delicate.
