Somebody (yet to be determined) must get the subject of the mmpr being in non compliant with with the scoc' pervious decision in front of the scoc again for clarification on what is needed for a mmj system in Canada. Hc has defied the decisoins of the scoc every time they have rueled.
injunction/court case updates
- Thread starter doingdishes
- Start date
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Correct, Kirk Tousaw has said that their latest move seems like 'arbitrary' restrictions. It will be back in court.
The Smith verdict helps Allard in more ways than one, Phelan now must consider the precedent and how the judges arrived at the conclusion of 'arbitrariness'.
The highest court will ultimately decide the details because hc has shown they don't give a fuck and want to make accessing and using mmj as difficult and expensive as possible just to hold it over everyone's heads for being untested and expensive...
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
Welcome! Are you a patient?...law/legal person?
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Who is this 'other lawyer'? Some percentage of ex-MMAR patients can still grow, I find it very hard to reconcile that is Conroy et al 'not doing any real favours'. As for Conroy's strategy regarding getting the injunction varied, I don't fully understand why it was discontinued at the higher level so this may well have been a bad move. There may however be some peculiarity of law that made this the best choice.
As I said, the balance of convenience is the most delicate and final 'test' that must be passed for an interlocutory motion to be granted. For better or worse, the judiciary is hesitant to intrude on matters of Parliament and even if the first test (Is there a serious issue to be tried?) and the second test (Will the plaintiffs suffer irreparable harm?) are passed, that does not guarantee an injunction will be granted. To say that those circumstances are Conroy's fault is just inaccurate. I recommend you read the case cited in the injunction ruling (R v SJS IIRC) as that case established the precedent for evaluation of interlocutory motions.
Other cases are stay'd pending Allard because if the matters are similar, it doesn't make sense to have 2 federal judges hearing the same case, or a judge at a lower court level to make a ruling that will be invalid per a higher court ruling. You can criticize how the legal process works but to put that on Conroy or any other lawyer is just dishonest.
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Patient who likes to pretend I understand the law on occasion
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
you believe what you want and I will believe what i want. saying it's dishonest is just plain wrong. i am not dishonest nor am i passing on lies. i am criticizing what CONroy is doing and what he is not doing.
i know he dropped the ball...why did he not ask for immediate relief? why didn't he do a lot of things....??
you ask me the other lawyer, that info was given to me in confidence so i won't pass on the name. that wouldn't be cool.
I am aware of the other cases on hold-I'm part of one of them and a lead in another....if he did such a bang up job, why is there other actions?
why is he only going after reinstatement of the MMAR instead of repeal? the list of questions can go on and on.
what favours do you think he is doing? he is being paid by us. look at what it took for him to update us via his website...there are lots of things that can be said. he IS working on the case but i believe he could be taking bigger and better strides than what he is doing....like discontinuing the appeal in the higher court. Manson's decision puzzled the higher court..so they sent it back for clarification-once that was received, he discontinued the appeal there.notice how there's no information why he did that? i have been waiting weeks for my reply from his office.
I'm not a lawyer nor do i proclaim to be one but i do read a lot and ask a lot of questions
"As I said, the balance of convenience is the most delicate and final 'test' that must be passed for an interlocutory motion to be granted. For better or worse, the judiciary is hesitant to intrude on matters of Parliament and even if the first test (Is there a serious issue to be tried?) and the second test (Will the plaintiffs suffer irreparable harm?) are passed, that does not guarantee an injunction will be granted. To say that those circumstances are Conroy's fault is just inaccurate"...where did i blame CONroy for that? i said he didn't do a good job on the getting the variance. the harm HAS been proven and that's why the injunction was granted....it's the "left outs" that need relief and he dropped the ball-with one more plaintiff that had valid papers but needed changes would have cut that off.
i truly believe he could be doing a much better job
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
No, this isn't how interlocutory motions work. For example, in the case regarding expat votes, the prevailing opinion did acknowledge irreparable harm to the point of saying that once an election happens, the chance to vote is lost forever at the conclusion. However, that was not enough to force an interlocutory injunction. All 3 tests (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) must be satisfied. That's how the law around this works.
Until you're willing to educate yourself on that I guess there's not much point continuing this conversation.
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
Honest answer...Patient who likes to pretend I understand the law on occasion
what is this???? tell me more detailed info pls.... and or contact info
pm me if you need to thanks
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
works for me...the injunction was granted because the harm was proven on more than one level of the Court system...if the harm wasn't proven why is there a current injunction?
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
So allard loses
there isn't anything left out, he switched his location had a pre injunction pink slip and called the police and fire department to take a look and do a walk through, counted the plant containers looked at electrical they didn't even ask for paper work I guess he brought it up before they did and he me toned the expiry awatsk said the courts put awatsk injunction on the program grandfathering in us
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
allard hasn't lost..CONroy dropped the ball on the variance for the injunction...he is still working on the case
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
sorry I didn't finish, if Allard loses only the plaintiffs can appeal. Patients lose the injunction and we start 2 years behind? The answer? Goldstars.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
if only those that are plaintiffs can appeal, i guess that's the way it would have to be....unless you are a Goldstar and then you have another kick at the can
Goldstars are next up when we get any allard decision.
GrowRock
Well-Known Member
If this is true I'm done being a legal patient what a fucking shit show all for the root of all evil the $$$$$$ talk about puting people who are already dealing with illness through bs. If the allard case loses I will take my chances in court
