JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Appreciate the level response, I think a lot of this would be solved by a legal 'second opinion' on the appeal. If no one has already I might try and contact Tousaw as a starting point.
injunction/court case updates
- Thread starter doingdishes
- Start date
If it's a one time deal 2 years is a small price to pay for a legit right to grow/possess more then 150grams. I'm gonna try why not.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
please contact him and see what he thinks. JC chimed in on his FB page and didn't answer much. he skirted the question about why he discontinued the appeal in the higher court but his 10th point was to go out and fund raise as he put in $300k that he hasn't billed for....
i also asked what he feels our chances are of getting our gardens back now that Beemish/Hebert were cut out of relief from the injunction. Turmel mentioned that since they are cut off, we may have lost our right to grow. i really want to know what he thinks will happen. i think we won't see a decision until after Oct 19
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i agree.
the sec 53 might be faster and easier though. i hope to get a meeting this week and see which way the wind blows
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
1. Do I currently(now until March 31st) hold a valid Authorization to Possess(ATP) or Personal Production License(PPL) or ATP and have a Designated Grower(DG)?; If the answer is 'yes' then you are grandfathered until further Order of the court the only change being the 150gm possession limit;
2. Did I hold a valid ATP/PPL or ATP/DG on September 30th, 2013?; If you had one then and didn't renew later you are still covered as above as long as you had valid documents on the key date;
3. Do I hold a valid ATP/PPL or ATP/DG issued after September 30th, 2013 whether a new one or amended one? If you managed to renew after that date you are covered.
It seems to me that this covers everyone except those who expired before September 30, 2013 and didn't renew at all. The key is the status of the license on September 30th or currently and you can ignore the expiry date and do not have to renew but possession is limited to 150grms.
Your PPL or DG plant count and storage numbers remain the same.
Reasons for Judgment [126]
In effect, the Applicants seek the regulatory scheme as it was under the MMAR and do not object to the provisions of the MMPR that relate to private growers. The way in which this can be accomplished in a manner least intrusive to the legislative sphere is to exempt those who currently hold a valid ATP, who held a valid DPL or PPL as of September 30, 2013, or hold a valid amended or new DPL or PPL that was issued after September 30, 2013, from the repeal of the MMAR and any provisions of the MMPR which are inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the MMAR, pending an expeditious trial and a decision of this case on its merits. Relief or Order 3. The Applicants who held, as of September 30, 2013, or were issued thereafter a valid Personal-use Production Licence pursuant to section 24 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, or a Designated-person Production Licence pursuant to section 34 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, are exempt from the repeal of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations and any other operation of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, which is inconsistent with the operation of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, to the extent that the Designated - person Production License or Personal-use Production License held by the Applicant shall remain valid until such time as a decision in this case is rendered at trial, and subject to the terms of paragraph 4 of this Order; 4. The terms of the exemption for an Applicant who held, as of September 30, 2013, or was issued thereafter a valid Personal-use Production License pursuant to section 24 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations or a Designated-person Production License pursuant to section 34 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, shall be in accordance with the terms of their license, notwithstanding the expiry date stated on that license.
2. Did I hold a valid ATP/PPL or ATP/DG on September 30th, 2013?; If you had one then and didn't renew later you are still covered as above as long as you had valid documents on the key date;
3. Do I hold a valid ATP/PPL or ATP/DG issued after September 30th, 2013 whether a new one or amended one? If you managed to renew after that date you are covered.
It seems to me that this covers everyone except those who expired before September 30, 2013 and didn't renew at all. The key is the status of the license on September 30th or currently and you can ignore the expiry date and do not have to renew but possession is limited to 150grms.
Your PPL or DG plant count and storage numbers remain the same.
Reasons for Judgment [126]
In effect, the Applicants seek the regulatory scheme as it was under the MMAR and do not object to the provisions of the MMPR that relate to private growers. The way in which this can be accomplished in a manner least intrusive to the legislative sphere is to exempt those who currently hold a valid ATP, who held a valid DPL or PPL as of September 30, 2013, or hold a valid amended or new DPL or PPL that was issued after September 30, 2013, from the repeal of the MMAR and any provisions of the MMPR which are inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the MMAR, pending an expeditious trial and a decision of this case on its merits. Relief or Order 3. The Applicants who held, as of September 30, 2013, or were issued thereafter a valid Personal-use Production Licence pursuant to section 24 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, or a Designated-person Production Licence pursuant to section 34 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, are exempt from the repeal of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations and any other operation of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, which is inconsistent with the operation of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, to the extent that the Designated - person Production License or Personal-use Production License held by the Applicant shall remain valid until such time as a decision in this case is rendered at trial, and subject to the terms of paragraph 4 of this Order; 4. The terms of the exemption for an Applicant who held, as of September 30, 2013, or was issued thereafter a valid Personal-use Production License pursuant to section 24 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations or a Designated-person Production License pursuant to section 34 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, shall be in accordance with the terms of their license, notwithstanding the expiry date stated on that license.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
and there would be a lot less "left outs" if CONroy had that one more plaintiff who was current but needed changes! i know i wouldn't be in the mess i was in if CONroy had thought about that one aspect. very short sighted.
Looks like we will soon find out if you can buy your freedom.
Kirk Tousaw
21 mins · Duncan ·
By way of further explanation: The Court will release this judgment via email. The Court is waiting for all counsel including Crown to confirm contact information. Release of judgment is going to be today or Monday. Obviously I'd like to know today!
This is the Allard-like case I've been litigating in BC Supreme Court. We sought an injunction like Allard but without the 150g limit and with ability to move a storage site. The decision only has binding effect on the 4 people involved. It may have precedenial effect in BC for other, future, litigants.
I made much more detailed posts a while back about this, so scroll down and you will find that information on my timeline.
Kirk Tousaw
21 mins · Duncan ·
By way of further explanation: The Court will release this judgment via email. The Court is waiting for all counsel including Crown to confirm contact information. Release of judgment is going to be today or Monday. Obviously I'd like to know today!
This is the Allard-like case I've been litigating in BC Supreme Court. We sought an injunction like Allard but without the 150g limit and with ability to move a storage site. The decision only has binding effect on the 4 people involved. It may have precedenial effect in BC for other, future, litigants.
I made much more detailed posts a while back about this, so scroll down and you will find that information on my timeline.
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
THEY WON!!!
Tousaw Law Corporation is pleased to report an important victory for medical cannabis patients' rights. Today the BC Supreme Court issued an injunction, covering 4 medical cannabis patients, that permits them to continue to produce under the terms of their MMAR licensing, and does not contain the 150g possession limit set out in the MMPR.
One patient was permitted to increase his plant count. Another was refused the ability to move his storage site.
This decision, however, represents a big step forward in the evolution of the law surrounding the right to produce and possess cannabis for medical purposes. A copy of the decision will be posted at www.tousawlaw.ca soon.
Onward.
Tousaw Law Corporation is pleased to report an important victory for medical cannabis patients' rights. Today the BC Supreme Court issued an injunction, covering 4 medical cannabis patients, that permits them to continue to produce under the terms of their MMAR licensing, and does not contain the 150g possession limit set out in the MMPR.
One patient was permitted to increase his plant count. Another was refused the ability to move his storage site.
This decision, however, represents a big step forward in the evolution of the law surrounding the right to produce and possess cannabis for medical purposes. A copy of the decision will be posted at www.tousawlaw.ca soon.
Onward.
So yes you,can buy freedom in hc atleast.
Kirk Tousaw
57 mins · Duncan ·
Tousaw Law Corporation is pleased to report an important victory for medical cannabis patients' rights. Today the BC Supreme Court issued an injunction, covering 4 medical cannabis patients, that permits them to continue to produce under the terms of their MMAR licensing, and does not contain the 150g possession limit set out in the MMPR.
One patient was permitted to increase his plant count. Another was refused the ability to move his storage site.
This decision, however, represents a big step forward in the evolution of the law surrounding the right to produce and possess cannabis for medical purposes. A copy of the decision will be posted at www.tousawlaw.ca soon.
Onward.
And I see bigmanc beat me to it.
Kirk Tousaw
57 mins · Duncan ·
Tousaw Law Corporation is pleased to report an important victory for medical cannabis patients' rights. Today the BC Supreme Court issued an injunction, covering 4 medical cannabis patients, that permits them to continue to produce under the terms of their MMAR licensing, and does not contain the 150g possession limit set out in the MMPR.
One patient was permitted to increase his plant count. Another was refused the ability to move his storage site.
This decision, however, represents a big step forward in the evolution of the law surrounding the right to produce and possess cannabis for medical purposes. A copy of the decision will be posted at www.tousawlaw.ca soon.
Onward.
And I see bigmanc beat me to it.
CannaReview
Well-Known Member
How does this affect people whose ATP expired before March 31 2014 but PPL was valid after Sept 30 2013? Is it still as Allard?
EDIT:
But since the president is set anyone getting busted who at least has a valid PPL should have good chacge of getting off, well after ponying over $$$$$ to the lawyers,.
EDIT:
Kirk TousawThis does not affect people covered by the Allard injunction at all.
But since the president is set anyone getting busted who at least has a valid PPL should have good chacge of getting off, well after ponying over $$$$$ to the lawyers,.
Last edited:
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
No, this precedent (and it is a BC only one currently) is not as simple as having a PPL. The critical part of this case was that the mobility portions of the Charter were specifically brought up, and the plantiffs have very high dosage levels, and were either looking at under medicating (sacrificing health) or over carrying and possibly receiving criminal consequences, and that is why the 150 gr limit wasn't enforced.
The plant count was increased as one of the plantiffs needed a dosage increase, and from what I read the address change was asked for in what seems like an overly broad way, in that it was 'any address where the plantiff may reside'.
If you have different situations than the specific plaintiffs here, or are in any other province, things could go very differently.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i still don't get why they refused the address change. i asked on Kirk's facebook as well as others but no answer. i am very curious as that would apply to my situation.
It was too broad of a request. They asked for the new address to be "where the patient resides" not a specific address. If they would have asked for a specific address to change it to they would have gotten it changed IMO.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
they should have allowed the address changes anyway...people move. if you got the address change OK'd for one address but unfortunately had to move again, would you have to got through the courts again?? that seems so wrong.
I think they should allow them as needed
Absolutely you should be able to move but... If you're trying to be as legit as possible then tell them the address so you don't accidentally get shot in a police raid. It shouldn't be hard to change your grow sites but you should have to come forward that you've changed production sites IMO. Otherwise people will abuse the hell out of it and have multiple sites.