injunction/court case updates

G

gb123

Well-Known Member
It's Meaningless! :)

now they have a new set of laws that they want to imprison patients with? We just fought that battle and kicked their ass... They sound like the crown did reiterating their bullshit to try and sound like what they say matters.. IT DOESN'T PEOPLE No one has to listen to these idiots if you are sick!!!
The way I see it... they are trying to add to a patients illness by having them worry ...once again.
 
Last edited:
R

rnr

Well-Known Member
I just looked and saw that the guy wrote jan 22 not june 22/15 on my receipt lol ohhhh boyyyy
 
cannadan

cannadan

Well-Known Member
"Impact of R. v. Smith (SCC), 2015 SCC 34
On June 11, 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed the government of Canada's appeal from the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (2014 BCCA 322) that had essentially upheld (except as to remedy) the decision of Mr. Justice Johnson of the British Columbia Supreme Court (2012 BCSC 544) striking out the limitation to "dried marihuana" in the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR). The SCC decision takes immediate effect, so there is no suspension of the declaration of unconstitutionality and it applies across the country. The effect of the decision is as follows:
  1. all MMAR approved patients across Canada can now legally possess cannabis in all of its forms for medical purposes;
  2. all others, as long as medically approved under either the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) or Narcotic Control Regulations (NCR) can use this decision in their defense to challenge the constitutionality of the limitation that continues in the MMPR and NCR if they possess other forms besides dried and are arrested and charged, or
  3. await the decision of Mr. Justice Phelan of the Federal Court Trial Division in the case of Allard v. The Queen that directly challenges the same limitation in the MMAR, MMPR and NCR, whereas Smith was limited to the MMAR.
When the Smith decision came down we sought permission from Justice Phelan to make a submission with respect to its relevance in Allard, and the Plaintiff’s submission was due June 25 and is linked below. The Defendant Canada has until July 8 to make its submission on this issue."
From Conroy's web site

I copied this just for our info here.....
but anyone know if the defendant Canada made its submission by july 8th?
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
cannadan said:
"Impact of R. v. Smith (SCC), 2015 SCC 34
On June 11, 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed the government of Canada's appeal from the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (2014 BCCA 322) that had essentially upheld (except as to remedy) the decision of Mr. Justice Johnson of the British Columbia Supreme Court (2012 BCSC 544) striking out the limitation to "dried marihuana" in the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR). The SCC decision takes immediate effect, so there is no suspension of the declaration of unconstitutionality and it applies across the country. The effect of the decision is as follows:
  1. all MMAR approved patients across Canada can now legally possess cannabis in all of its forms for medical purposes;
  2. all others, as long as medically approved under either the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) or Narcotic Control Regulations (NCR) can use this decision in their defense to challenge the constitutionality of the limitation that continues in the MMPR and NCR if they possess other forms besides dried and are arrested and charged, or
  3. await the decision of Mr. Justice Phelan of the Federal Court Trial Division in the case of Allard v. The Queen that directly challenges the same limitation in the MMAR, MMPR and NCR, whereas Smith was limited to the MMAR.
When the Smith decision came down we sought permission from Justice Phelan to make a submission with respect to its relevance in Allard, and the Plaintiff’s submission was due June 25 and is linked below. The Defendant Canada has until July 8 to make its submission on this issue."
From Conroy's web site

I copied this just for our info here.....
but anyone know if the defendant Canada made its submission by july 8th?
Click to expand...
they did
here's the site i check every couple days for the injunction: http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-2030-13

Written Submissions on behalf of Defendant concerning the Court's direction dated 16-Jun-2015 filed on 08-JUL-2015

Affidavit of service of Tami Mukai sworn on 08-JUL-2015 on behalf of Defendant confirming service of doc.158 upon Plaintiff by email on 08-JUL-2015 with Exhibits A filed on 08-JUL-2015-whoever Tami is

Conroy's responded July 9-Letter from Plaintiff dated 09-JUL-2015 commenting on Defendant's submissions and requesting for leave to provide a 5-page Reply received on 09-JUL-2015.
Letter from Respondent dated 09-JUL-2015 responding to Plaintiffs' letter dated 9 Jul 2015 received on 09-JUL-2015
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
latest update!!!
from http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-2030-13

Written directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan dated 13-JUL-2015 directing that "In view of the new issues raised, the plaintiffs are to have the right of Reply limited to five (5) pages to be filed within 10 days, and the Defendant shall have a right of sur-reply limited to s 58 issues to be filed five (5) days after the date of filing of the Reply and limited to three (3) pages. This will close off argument in this case." placed on file on 13-JUL-2015

i am not sure if that means we get an answer or have the right to an answer
 
Brewery

Brewery

Well-Known Member
Looks to be that plaintiffs (conroy and co.) have 10 days to submit their reply (limited to 5 pages).

The crown then has 5 days to reply (limited to 3 pages)

After this arguments are done... Hopefully this means a judgement with be coming soon thereafter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top