injunction/court case updates

doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
this is something from the courts from Mar 3

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-2030-13

Order dated 02-MAR-2015 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Oral motion regarding the applicability of the principles Browne v Dunn in the present proceeding Result: granted in part "This Court Orders that in respect to the treatment of expert evidence in action, the following shall apply: 'In respect of expert evidence, the Court is not required to accept an expert opinion offered merely because it is not contradicted by cross-examination or other evidence. The principle in Browne v Dunn does not operate to create a presumption of persuasiveness in expert testimony. In particular, the weight, if any, to be accorded to an expert's opinion is not contigent on whether the cross-examination has taken place, nor is cross- examination a precondition to a party leading contradictory expert evidence, or taking issue with an expert testimony in argument.'" Filed on 02-MAR-2015 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1259 page(s) 406 - 407 Interlocutory Decision
 
oddish

oddish

Well-Known Member
Nothing that's said matters unless you can get inside the judge's heads and see how they perceive it.
As ignorant as it may seem, I'm staying out of all this information overload until it's over. I don't need the emotional rollercoaster. I'll be here puffing away when the verdict comes out.
 
The Hippy

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
oddish said:
Nothing that's said matters unless you can get inside the judge's heads and see how they perceive it.
As ignorant as it may seem, I'm staying out of all this information overload until it's over. I don't need the emotional rollercoaster. I'll be here puffing away when the verdict comes out.
Click to expand...
Not like you Oddish to sit back
 
oddish

oddish

Well-Known Member
The Hippy said:
Not like you Oddish to sit back
Click to expand...
Trust me, I'm aware that it's not like me.
I'm avoiding just this thread.. too much information flying around and 50% of it is going to be bullshit, even from the expert witnesses, so I will just stay at a safe distance.
 
The Hippy

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
oddish said:
Trust me, I'm aware that it's not like me.
I'm avoiding just this thread.. too much information flying around and 50% of it is going to be bullshit, even from the expert witnesses, so I will just stay at a safe distance.
Click to expand...
Hunker Oddish, Hunker
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
as far as I see it.... this won't end here.
It will go to the supreme court.
Patients that are allowed, will still be allowed
Lp's will do their thing and MORE with regards to extracts and
our boys in blue will have more work in the mean time than they'll know what to do with....

Life goes on... :)


ball of confusion :lol:
 
oddish

oddish

Well-Known Member
I don't think there will be any shock at all. A small victory for both sides (ie: they don't get shut down) that holds for another 12 months + supreme court case. Loads of things could go wrong, but there's no way the courts are going to smack down the MMAR or the MMPR - they'll just build some sort of temporary co-exist system.
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
oddish said:
I don't think there will be any shock at all. A small victory for both sides (ie: they don't get shut down) that holds for another 12 months + supreme court case. Loads of things could go wrong, but there's no way the courts are going to smack down the MMAR or the MMPR - they'll just build some sort of temporary co-exist system.
Click to expand...
but we will be able to make changes to our sites if needed. we will be able to produce for ourselves...those changes will happen until we get the decision from the Supreme Court. neither side will stop until it gets there so it will be a long time. i would like to be able to have a garden...not matter if it's only for another year or 2
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
did i miss where there is no one there today & the next witness is Monday? no one is tweeting about the case & it should have started an hour ago
 
j0yr1d3

j0yr1d3

Well-Known Member
doingdishes said:
this is something from the courts from Mar 3

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-2030-13

Order dated 02-MAR-2015 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Oral motion regarding the applicability of the principles Browne v Dunn in the present proceeding Result: granted in part "This Court Orders that in respect to the treatment of expert evidence in action, the following shall apply: 'In respect of expert evidence, the Court is not required to accept an expert opinion offered merely because it is not contradicted by cross-examination or other evidence. The principle in Browne v Dunn does not operate to create a presumption of persuasiveness in expert testimony. In particular, the weight, if any, to be accorded to an expert's opinion is not contigent on whether the cross-examination has taken place, nor is cross- examination a precondition to a party leading contradictory expert evidence, or taking issue with an expert testimony in argument.'" Filed on 02-MAR-2015 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1259 page(s) 406 - 407 Interlocutory Decision
Click to expand...
I don't speak lawyernese. What exactly is this saying? They aren't accepting "expert" witness testimony from that pig? Or they are allowing it, but not with very much weight. I knew I should've went to law school!
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
j0yr1d3 said:
I don't speak lawyernese. What exactly is this saying? They aren't accepting "expert" witness testimony from that pig? Or they are allowing it, but not with very much weight. I knew I should've went to law school!
Click to expand...
they are weighing in on how Brown V Dunn can apply to this case. I am not positive but I think that's the case of people euthanasia...their choice of the medicine the terminally ill use
i could be very wrong on that so please don't take only my word
 
j0yr1d3

j0yr1d3

Well-Known Member
doingdishes said:
they are weighing in on how Brown V Dunn can apply to this case. I am not positive but I think that's the case of people euthanasia...their choice of the medicine the terminally ill use
i could be very wrong on that so please don't take only my word
Click to expand...
Ahh ok, I was not familiar with that case so didn't really know what all that part was about. Makes sense though since most cases have precedents and what not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top