I think riu has way more readers then posters. Expecally in the Canadian section. Now that the section 56 app has been posted and the address to send it to has been posted I guarantee others will go the same route just because at this point why not try. If we start to see any actual success I bet a title wave of section 56 apps will flood in. Just a guess. Ask jct if he sees any holes in this plan. Perhaps this has been tried unsuccessfully before and is a dead end.
injunction/court case updates
- Thread starter doingdishes
- Start date
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i just spoke to him. he said it won't help because they will simply refer to the current program-MMPR.
i still wonder if it will work. maybe if a bunch of sent them in, they would hate us but we may also make enough noise. i say hit 'em where we can
Worth the $$ expespost cost to try. There's no longer a signing doctor in winnipeg. The dispensary got shut down the doc who was charging $300 a note got his hand slapped by the college and no longer bothers signing as he only can bill for a normal doctors visit. So a section 56 may work.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i will call the clinic where i got my paperwork signed and ask if he'd do a sec 56. if so, i will post it and see where we can go with it.
eventhough JCT says it might be a waste, i think it's a good idea to hammer whoever we can.
let's make more noise!
Squeaks get greased
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
@doingdishes it was originally used for people who couldn't get a doctors approval and for other ways of consuming then dried Marijuana. I don't think we need a doc but it sure as shit will help if he can sign a cover letter stating how and why it helps you.
MarijeJane
Well-Known Member
And I was told repeatedly that no one qA
And I was told repeatedly by several posters here, including the Hippy and GB that NOBODY was being convicted, let alone charged with cannabis. Hmmmm? Someone must be wrong here...................
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i was told personally by a RCMP supervisor that they aren't "really" enforcing things right now. they are waiting for the election. when Harper is gone, things will change. the Beard says he'll decriminilize the first day they are in power-hopefully that's true but i wonder how unless they get a majority-JT says he's in favour of legalization and will drop charges for MMJ.
Honestly its people who are being dickheads to the police that are being charged for possession. Cultivation without mmar paperwork or a section 56 exemption is going to result in charges in most cases. Not all but most.
martyg
Well-Known Member
I'm in too if that's cool
kirks facebook post
Big decision tomorrow in BC Supreme Court. My last post about it caused some confusion. Here's what happening. The case is Boivin, Garber, Sproule and Newmarch v. AG Canada. I'll call it Boivin because its normal to go in alphabetical order.
I represent 4 high-dosage former MMAR patients, names above. Shortly after the Allard case was filed in Federal Court, I filed a similar, but not identical, action on behalf of my clients in BC Supreme Court (BCSC). The BCSC has the right to decide Charter issues that are raised by residents of BC. When the Allard injunction came down, it was clear that my clients (a) qualified for the injunction, but (b) continued to be aggrieved by the 150-gram limitation and the inability to change addresses.
There was some preliminary fighting. Crown asked the Court to stay - freeze - Boivin because they said Allard was the "national test case" and other people should just wait and see what happens. We disagreed, argued that Allard and the injunction helped but didn't fully resolve my clients' issues, and argued that people have the right to go to BCSC for individual Charter relief even though Allard was helping to an extent. The Court, at the trial level, sided with us and refused the stay. This was a big win because a few hundred other cases had already been stayed. The Crown immediately appealed, we argued the case before the BC Court of Appeal, and that decision hasn't been released. But since we won at the trial level, the case is moving ahead.
A few weeks ago we argued our injunction request. We sought to have my clients' MMAR rights preserved including personal production and the 30-day possession amount. Because one client also needed to change his storage site, we argued for that also. The Crown opposed it. The Court reserved decision, meaning that it didn't decide right away. Tomorrow is the decision.
The decision will apply directly only to my 4 clients. The Crown expressed concern - indeed it was the bulk of their argument on both the stay and the injunction - that a decision in my clients' favor would open up the floodgates and that many BC patients protected by Allard (or semi-protected) would come to BCSC seeking similar relief and using the Boivin decision as a precedent. My response was that I couldn't control the actions of other litigants but that all residents of BC have the right to seek help from the BCSC if they feel their Charter rights are being violated, and that just because another case is going on they shouldn't be denied relief if the Court believes relief is justified. Moreover, I argued that if Allard is a loss in Federal Court, my clients shouldn't just have to wait for that, potentially have to destroy plants/genetics/medicine (or break the law) then come back to BCSC for their own injunction.
Big decision tomorrow in BC Supreme Court. My last post about it caused some confusion. Here's what happening. The case is Boivin, Garber, Sproule and Newmarch v. AG Canada. I'll call it Boivin because its normal to go in alphabetical order.
I represent 4 high-dosage former MMAR patients, names above. Shortly after the Allard case was filed in Federal Court, I filed a similar, but not identical, action on behalf of my clients in BC Supreme Court (BCSC). The BCSC has the right to decide Charter issues that are raised by residents of BC. When the Allard injunction came down, it was clear that my clients (a) qualified for the injunction, but (b) continued to be aggrieved by the 150-gram limitation and the inability to change addresses.
There was some preliminary fighting. Crown asked the Court to stay - freeze - Boivin because they said Allard was the "national test case" and other people should just wait and see what happens. We disagreed, argued that Allard and the injunction helped but didn't fully resolve my clients' issues, and argued that people have the right to go to BCSC for individual Charter relief even though Allard was helping to an extent. The Court, at the trial level, sided with us and refused the stay. This was a big win because a few hundred other cases had already been stayed. The Crown immediately appealed, we argued the case before the BC Court of Appeal, and that decision hasn't been released. But since we won at the trial level, the case is moving ahead.
A few weeks ago we argued our injunction request. We sought to have my clients' MMAR rights preserved including personal production and the 30-day possession amount. Because one client also needed to change his storage site, we argued for that also. The Crown opposed it. The Court reserved decision, meaning that it didn't decide right away. Tomorrow is the decision.
The decision will apply directly only to my 4 clients. The Crown expressed concern - indeed it was the bulk of their argument on both the stay and the injunction - that a decision in my clients' favor would open up the floodgates and that many BC patients protected by Allard (or semi-protected) would come to BCSC seeking similar relief and using the Boivin decision as a precedent. My response was that I couldn't control the actions of other litigants but that all residents of BC have the right to seek help from the BCSC if they feel their Charter rights are being violated, and that just because another case is going on they shouldn't be denied relief if the Court believes relief is justified. Moreover, I argued that if Allard is a loss in Federal Court, my clients shouldn't just have to wait for that, potentially have to destroy plants/genetics/medicine (or break the law) then come back to BCSC for their own injunction.
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
Not sure where I found the figures I quoted now and realize I should have linked source. This is another great read that shows its a giant crap shoot when it comes to getting charged, even in BC, but yes, the Vancouver police do seem to be less than eager to lay a possession charge. I guess my point is, more than anything, it should be made clear, you still can and will be charged for possesion in Canada for pot. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-patchwork-pot-policy-how-possession-charges-vary-from-city-to-city/article16377021/?service=mobile
↑
"I just kinda jumped into this thread but I gotta say there are quite a few inaccuracies stated. BC has convicted over 1300 people for cannabis crimes in the first 6 months of 2015, not sure how many were actually charged though, i only spent 3 min. finding the conviction numbers lol. While thats not a lot its hardly being ignored. Also a charge and not a conviction will be on your record and can still have grave consequences. As for this debate about NDP versus LIB, and who offerers the best policies. Yes get the facts! There are non!!! Lol. Both parties have been very vague recently, when asked about their intentions, other than it will be highly regulated at first but decriminalized. After that, WTF knows! And really I know I fear the word regulated lol. Although its got to be better than now, right???"
"BC has convicted over 1300 people for cannabis crimes in the first 6 months of 2015, not sure how many were actually charged though"
Umm dudley..
you get 'charged' first.
..then 'convicted'.
and MJ.. we're talking MED Pateints!
"I just kinda jumped into this thread but I gotta say there are quite a few inaccuracies stated. BC has convicted over 1300 people for cannabis crimes in the first 6 months of 2015, not sure how many were actually charged though, i only spent 3 min. finding the conviction numbers lol. While thats not a lot its hardly being ignored. Also a charge and not a conviction will be on your record and can still have grave consequences. As for this debate about NDP versus LIB, and who offerers the best policies. Yes get the facts! There are non!!! Lol. Both parties have been very vague recently, when asked about their intentions, other than it will be highly regulated at first but decriminalized. After that, WTF knows! And really I know I fear the word regulated lol. Although its got to be better than now, right???"
"BC has convicted over 1300 people for cannabis crimes in the first 6 months of 2015, not sure how many were actually charged though"
Umm dudley..
you get 'charged' first.
..then 'convicted'.
and MJ.. we're talking MED Pateints!
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
@doingdishes you might want to get info on this boivin case as kirk was successful arguing they have grounds to discuss the case.
and just to be clear...not one patient will be convicted!!!↑
"I just kinda jumped into this thread but I gotta say there are quite a few inaccuracies stated. BC has convicted over 1300 people for cannabis crimes in the first 6 months of 2015, not sure how many were actually charged though, i only spent 3 min. finding the conviction numbers lol. While thats not a lot its hardly being ignored. Also a charge and not a conviction will be on your record and can still have grave consequences. As for this debate about NDP versus LIB, and who offerers the best policies. Yes get the facts! There are non!!! Lol. Both parties have been very vague recently, when asked about their intentions, other than it will be highly regulated at first but decriminalized. After that, WTF knows! And really I know I fear the word regulated lol. Although its got to be better than now, right???"
"BC has convicted over 1300 people for cannabis crimes in the first 6 months of 2015, not sure how many were actually charged though"
Umm dudley..
you get 'charged' first.
..then 'convicted'.
and MJ.. we're talking MED Pateints!
Now as for being Charged?..
Like we've been saying all along..EVERYONE IS OPEN to being charged.
That's a huge problem! Police, don't know their job and can't perform.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i emailed yesterday. i am also going to talk to John T and see if he can/will help out with paperwork if we can't afford Kirk T
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
Wait and see how she goes today...you could run through courts and do it that way but if he wins its going to be a free for all. Everyone will move sites and carry more then 150g, patients will just fight it and win if they have to defend themselves in court.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
that's what Kirk said in his facebook post
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
I guess we will see if courts have our best interests in mind. We have the right to travel (150g limit) and if the crown can argue your a patient at 1 address and not another then hes just a sleezy suit.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
we would need the 150 off as well. that's restricting for sure...and the money aspect to be able to travel..haha