trial... decision.
- Thread starter gb123
- Start date
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
You lost me gb, what new law?me thinks the judge is not going to have to render a decision with how this new law just got set out.
It would seem MMJ patients have won out right and that final decision on patients rights to grow will be made by our health minister when all is said and done.
errraaaaa sorry..not law
. the point wasn't really about what was done today by our Health Minister..but more so how she went about it..
My point was that she is making the decisions it seems...so I just feel she will do the same in regards to MMJ patients by dropping the court proceedings! and move forward from there.
. the point wasn't really about what was done today by our Health Minister..but more so how she went about it..
My point was that she is making the decisions it seems...so I just feel she will do the same in regards to MMJ patients by dropping the court proceedings!
and move forward from there.
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
Gotcha.I think things look good, I can't see her or HC wanting to pursue this. I just wonder why the wait?errraaaaa sorry..not law
. the point wasn't really about what was done today by our Health Minister..but more so how she went about it..
My point was that she is making the decisions it seems...so I just feel she will do the same in regards to MMJ patients by dropping the court proceedings!
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
If HC drops the appeal, do we not win without getting a ruling? The mmpr/mmar would have to be fixed or replaced, but if HC does so voluntarily, the court is mute, imo. I'm not a lawyer and logic and common sense are not always a part of legal decisions, so I could be wrong entirely!
If hc drops the appeal then the mmar would be back in effect. Effectively killing the mmpr in the process. Don't expect this outcome.
no. lol
Im thinking they will leave well enough alone..
They dont give a rats ass about 40k of medical people and if they are worried about any of them..they just send in the police to deal with it..that is their job after all.
And by right, leave the sick alone.
oddish
Well-Known Member
Not remotely true.
The MMAR doesn't go back into effect - that's not at all what this case is about.
This case is about current MMAR patients - nothing to do with anyone who is not an MMAR patient today.
If it's held up for former/current mmar patients it will have to be open for all Canadians.
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
You would think, but would it be automatic, or will there be another round in court where post mmar patients have to fight for inclusion? I would not be surprised if HC was already working on an improved mmar system, hence the delay in Phelan releasing a decision. With the track record of HC, I'm pretty sure the Liberals will want to get it right...for all sides They have been dropping Harper constitutional challenges, like the niqab, and the optics of one against them this early in the game won't be good.
oddish
Well-Known Member
And there will also be unicorns and rainbows too, right? Go read the court case - the entire case is about protecting those that had a system and were told it was going to disappear. There's no legal way to add someone to the MMAR program and they can't open that back up again without a completely different case.
Never said it would happen automatically. Simply that if it's legal for one group it will be legal for all. Of course it will have to be challenged in court but you cant afford one group rights that you deny to the rest of Canadians simply because of a date.
Not surprised you just don't get it.
TheDizzyBizzy
Well-Known Member
Sorry, no it would not. The current appeal we are waiting on a ruling for is the government's appeal of the past injunction. The MMAR itself is already gone. Just ask Conroy. All that exists now is a temporary injunction protecting some past patients under the MMAR. That's not the same thing as the MMAR itself being preserved.
The only real scenario out of this appeal ruling is Phelan telling Health Canada they have to amend the mmpr to allow for home production (ruling for Allard/Controy, etc), or Phelan saying tough shit and siding with the government. My money is on the first option, but probably not until after the first of the year.
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
On what happens if the govt 'drops the appeal':
There is no appeal right now. Allard et al v Canada is a federal case at the trial level, which is awaiting decision. So there's nothing for the govt to drop, depending on the ruling plaintiffs or govt may decide to appeal, but that hasn't happened yet.
On MMAR coming back:
The MMAR is gone. The provisions in the MMAR remain in place for the injunctees, and a peculiar side effect there is the govt maintaining the MMAR database. What constitutes constitutionally viable is what we're waiting on, and a decision will likely be the usual 'x is unconstitutional, suspending declaration of unconstitutionality for x days so govt can fix'. There will be no 'automatic fix', save for what Phelan would do for the injunctees if Plaintiffs win.
On legal for 'all groups':
Being a representative case, a positive verdict would mean it is legal for all 'medically approved', which still ends up with the current issue with doctors not signing. So what's said here is mostly accurate, just keep in mind it doesn't mean anyone can go into court and say 'I suffer from X, therefore it's ok if I use cannabis'.
In any event I would suspect the MMPR to be vastly, if not completely rewritten as the regs do not at all address R v Smith, Sec 56 by botox Ambrose was just a stopgap measure (which the conservatives never intended to fix, no doubt).
There is no appeal right now. Allard et al v Canada is a federal case at the trial level, which is awaiting decision. So there's nothing for the govt to drop, depending on the ruling plaintiffs or govt may decide to appeal, but that hasn't happened yet.
On MMAR coming back:
The MMAR is gone. The provisions in the MMAR remain in place for the injunctees, and a peculiar side effect there is the govt maintaining the MMAR database. What constitutes constitutionally viable is what we're waiting on, and a decision will likely be the usual 'x is unconstitutional, suspending declaration of unconstitutionality for x days so govt can fix'. There will be no 'automatic fix', save for what Phelan would do for the injunctees if Plaintiffs win.
On legal for 'all groups':
Being a representative case, a positive verdict would mean it is legal for all 'medically approved', which still ends up with the current issue with doctors not signing. So what's said here is mostly accurate, just keep in mind it doesn't mean anyone can go into court and say 'I suffer from X, therefore it's ok if I use cannabis'.
In any event I would suspect the MMPR to be vastly, if not completely rewritten as the regs do not at all address R v Smith, Sec 56 by botox Ambrose was just a stopgap measure (which the conservatives never intended to fix, no doubt).
realmeduser
Well-Known Member
troll... decision
i keep misreading the title
i keep misreading the title
Brian Savage
Well-Known Member
You legal experts are really awesome, you should start practicing law! 