injunction/court case updates

Sandy420

Sandy420

Well-Known Member
Forms will be ready today to apply for a Motion to Intervene in the Allard case. This is Important! There is no time to waste!
John Turmel
9 hrs ·
TURMEL: Allard Appeal Intervener Forms to Amend ATPs!
JCT: This could be the move to finally get some justice.
Federal Court of Appeal Ordered Judge Manson to address
Tanya Beemish (and 12,000 others) being Left Out by his cut
date and David Hebert's permits being voided by no MMAR for
amendments.
Justice Manson refused stating he was cutting off as many
as many past patients as possible and as many as many future
patients as possible to "avoid unduly impacting on the
viability of the MMPR and the practical implications of the
MMAR's repeal."
John Conroy filed an appeal to the guys who ruled he should
address the failure to grant a remedy to match their right
on Jan 16 but didn't file a motion for immediate interim
relief.
So in our motion to intervene because we're affected by the
ruling, we ask for the relief for Beemish and Hebert that
Conroy forgot. And for everyone else too. Let's see if the
Court of Appeal have the stomach to leave 12,000 people cut
off to protect the marketability of the MMPR? Especially if
all 12,000 spend the $20 to ask.
As usual, you have to fill in the blanks. The Record Covers
are easy, the Notice of Motion is easy, the Memorandum is
easy, they're generic, only the Affidavit takes personal
information. As usual, KISS! Keep It Super Simple, but how
many trump do you need to win a pot?
Not only Gold Stars can file to intervene for immediate
relief, anyone affected by the Manson Order putting MMPR
viability before patient viability can file to intervene.
Everyone affected is one kit away from asking a judge for
instant justice.
To let the courts know how unhappy we are with Manson's
priorities, cutting people's meds off for non-medical
reasons to protect the regime, lots of filers will do that,
guaranteed.
And they'll just have to open up the Allard appeal hearing
to all the courtrooms across Canada like they did for us
last time at the April 29 2014 Big Event.
I originally prepared the forms to intervene for only a few
people before I realized the impact of a lot of upset people
demanding the remedy for their right the Court of Appeal had
said the judge forgot would be harder to easily dismiss. So
here are generic forms for any one affected, not just my
Gold Stars who know the ropes.
As for John Conroy filing his Jan 16 Appeal and not moving
for immediate relief in order to spend time below arguing
about "dried," "Indoor-Outdoor" and not "no permits," is
unexplainable. So I'm combining the motion to intervene with
the one asking for relief right away. That's why lots of
patients asking for relief right away will be useful. So
everyone has to intervene to ask for themselves what poor
John forgot to get them and the more who ask, the less
likely it's a no.
I'm appending the generic Notice of Motion, Affidavit and
Memorandum for you to scrutinize for errors and omissions.
You have until tomorrow to suggest any additions or
deletions. Then I'll publish the generic forms for everyone
Saturday night at
http://johnturmel.com/intervene.doc
http://johnturmel.com/intervene.pdf
The formats should get no resistance, I've made such motions
before. Standard motion process here. Just cut out and paste
your own Name/Address/Phone/Email data yourselves and write
out your facts in the Affidavit. You can get the Affidavit
sworn by the clerk when you file. Then you add copies of
signed affidavit page to your kits (don't make the clerk
sign them all) and then go serve one kit on the Crown and
come back to it with the signed service on the back with the
Registry. I think you need 3 copies, 4 for yourself
So some will be filed in Vancouver and Toronto and Ottawa on
opening day of the hearing below! Those in Vancouver can
then take in the lower court show. And as many as possible
should file thereafter. Tougher to dismiss.
DRAFT KIT TO INTERVENE IN ALLARD A-31-15
File No: _________
FCA No: A-31-14
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
___________________________
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
RECORD OF MOTION
1. Notice of Motion
2. Applicant's Affidavit
3. Applicant's Memorandum
For the Applicant:
Name: ____________________________
Address: _________________________
__________________________________
Tel/fax: _________________________
Email: ___________________________
For the Respondent:
For the Respondent:
Attorney General for Canada
Address: __________________________________
File No: _________
FCA No: A-31-14
File
No: _________
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
___________________________
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
NOTICE OF MOTION
TAKE NOTICE THAT of the Applicant's motion in writing filed at
the Federal Court of Appeal.
THE MOTION SEEKS AN ORDER that:
1) Applicant may intervene in appeal A-31-15;
2) Applicant's MMAR permits are deemed to be amended to
reflect the needed changes described in Applicant's Affidavit.
3) Applicant's possession limit be changed to 30 times
Applicant's personal daily dosage.
THE GROUNDS ARE THAT
a) Applicant's Charter Right is impinged upon by the appeal
and matters affecting Applicant have not been addressed, and
b) the Interim Order to Order permits be deemed amended could
always be rescinded up until any loss of the appeal.
AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging any time for service or amending
any error or omission which this Honourable Court may allow.
Dated at ________________________ on _______________ 2015.
______________________________
Applicant's Signature:
Name: ____________________________
Address: _________________________
__________________________________
Tel/fax: _________________________
Email: ___________________________
TO: Registrar of this Court
Attorney General for Canada
File No: _________
FCA No: A-31-14
File
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
___________________________
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
NOTICE OF MOTION
For the Applicant:
Name: ____________________________
Address: _________________________
__________________________________
Tel/fax: _________________________
Email: ___________________________
File No: _________
FCA No: A-31-14
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
___________________________
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT
I, _______________________________________, residing at
_______________________________________ make oath as follows:
1. #________________________________________________ is the
Health Canada number of my MMAR permits authorizing me to
possess and produce medical marijuana and am therefore in the
class of patients affected by the Orders of Justice Manson in
Allard et al v. HMQ [T-2030-13].
2. I am in the very same situation as Allard Appellant:
A: (___) Tanya Beemish in that I have a grandfathered Produce
Permit but a lapsed Possession Permit;
B: (___) David Hebert in that failure to allow amending my
permits denies me access to my medicine. I need my
Authorization To Possess to be deemed changed as follows:
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
3. I only ask the Court to provide me with an Interim Order
deeming both my permits amended to Oct 1 2013 and/or deeming
the permit changes to be effected. I don't even need Health
Canada to amend my permits. A court Order I can show an
officer authorizing any change should well suffice.
Sworn before me at _________________ on ______________2015.
________________________________
Name: ____________________________
Address: _________________________
__________________________________
Tel/fax: _________________________
Email: ___________________________
____________________________
A COMMISSIONER, ETC.
File No: _________
FCA No: A-31-14
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
___________________________
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT
For the Applicant:
Name: ____________________________
Address: _________________________
__________________________________
Tel/fax: _________________________
Email: ___________________________

File No: _________
FCA No: A-31-14
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
___________________________
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
 
Last edited:
Sandy420

Sandy420

Well-Known Member
APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM
PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Applicant is an authorized medical marijuana patient in the
class affected by the Allard v. HMQ [A-31-14] appeal and moves
to intervene with an interim remedy deeming the Authorization
to Possess and Produce permits be amended to reflect the
necessary changes described in Applicant's Affidavit.
MMAR HISTORY
2. On Oct 1 2013, Health Canada instituted the MMPR and no
longer accepted applications for ATPs under the MMAR which
would be repealed on April 1 2014. Patients whose exemptions
expired in the half-year before April 1 2014 could only remain
legal by destroying all they had previously-grown and stocked
and providing proof of purchase from one of only 6 Licensed
Producers at the time. Deterred by prohibitively high MMPR
prices, most Exemptees could not purchase to remain legal and
continued to use their own now-illegal stock rather than
destroying it and suffering without. The Health Canada
Destroy-to-Renew Order forced all but the rich into the Parker
Predicament of having to choose between their health and the
law. Most chose outlawry while awaiting court developments and
many patients have since been busted for continuing their
prescribed treatment.
3. Mar 18 2014, the date of the Motion Hearing in Allard,
Davey, Beemish & Hebert v. HMQ [T-2030-13] before Federal
Court Justice Manson for extension of the MMAR was the last
day of Robert Roy's Authorizations to Possess and Produce with
all permits expiring less than 2 weeks later on April 1 2014!
They would remain exempted or not depending on the decision.
But the judge reserved his decision. And so Robert Roy's
exemption expired the next day while awaiting the decision.
4. On Mar 21 2014, just 2 days later, Justice Manson
grandfathered all Grow Permits back to Oct 1 2013 but only
grandfathered the Possess Permits requisite to enable the Grow
permits as of the date of his decision, not to the date of the
hearing! Though Roy had sufficient medical need to have his
permit extended on the date of the hearing, the court ruled he
no longer did on the date of his decision only 3 days later.
4. No provision was made for ATPs needing to be amended from
becoming voided thus Hebert, having had to move, was Left Out
of the relief.
5. The Crown appealed any extension of patients' MMAR permits
wanting everyone cut off from their medication, not just those
12,000 unfortunate enough to have expired in the previous
half-year. The Allards cross-appealed for relief to:
a) expand the extension to all patients with grand-fathered
Production Permits;
b) allow permits to be amended.
6. On Dec 15 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal Justices Nadon,
Webb and Boivin ruled:
[18] While the judge carefully crafted and tailored his
order in a way that he considered minimally intrusive into
the legislative sphere (judge's reasons at para. 121), it
does not provide remedy to patients who held valid
production licences on September 30, 2013 but whose
authorizations to possess expired between September 30,
2013 and March 21, 2014 (the date of his order). The
judge's choice of March 21, 2014 as the "cut-off" date has
the effect of excluding Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert from
his order.
[19] With respect, the difficulty with the judge's finding
is that although he provides a right (the interlocutory
injunction) to the four (4) respondents - Mr. Allard, Mr.
Davey, Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert - he does not, in
contrast, explain why he deprives two (2) respondents -
Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert - of a remedy. After careful
reading of the judge's reasons, I am left to speculate as
to his intention.
[20] In these circumstances, I cannot address properly the
determination the respondents are seeking as I am unable
to understand whether the judge intended to exclude Ms.
Beemish and Mr Hebert or simply forgot to deal with their
situation. In other words, the judge's reasons do not
allow this Court to perform its appellate function.
[21] After considering making an assessment of the
evidence, I believe that the wiser course is to return the
matter to the judge with a direction that he specifically
addresses the situation of Ms. Beemish and Mr Hebert.
[23].. I would remit the matter back to the judge for
determination solely on the issue of the scope of the
remedy, more particularly with respect to Ms. Beemish and
Mr. Hebert, in accordance with these reasons.
7. On Dec 30, 2014, Justice Manson refused the Order of the
Court of Appeal to reconsider his decision:
Upon having regard to the Federal Court of Appeal's
decision dated December 15 2014...
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
[1] The Plaintiffs request a reconsideration of my
decision of Mar 21, 2014, to
(i) order that all patients that held a valid
Authorization to Possess (ATP) on March 21 2014, or in the
alternative, September 30 2013, are covered by the
Exemption Order I made, and to
(ii) order that all patients exempted by the Order,
including Mr. Hebert and Ms. Beemish, and others similarly
situated, can change their address form with Health Canada
pending trial.
[2] As stated above, the Federal Court of Appeal remitted
the issue of the scope of the interlocutory injunction for
clarification only, to specify whether the injunction
applied to Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert.
There is no reconsideration to be made and certainly no
expansion of the scope of my decision to apply to anyone
other than the plaintiffs in the proceeding.
[3] In considering the balance of convenience, I
specifically chose the relevant transitional dates of
September 30 2013 and March 21 2014 to limit the
availability of injunctive relief to extend only to those
individuals who held valid licenses to either possess of
produce marijuana for medical purposes as of those
relevant dates...
[4] Accordingly, only those plaintiffs who had a valid
license on September 30 2013 could continue producing
marijuana for medical purposes and only those plaintiffs
who held a valid authorization to possess marijuana for
medical purposes at the time of my decision on March 21
2014 could continue to so possess.
[5] In considering the balance of convenience, the remedy
I granted was intended to avoid unduly impacting the
viability of the Marijuana for Medical Purposes
Regulations (MMPR) and to take into consideration the
practical implications of the MMAR regime no longer being
in force.
[6].. The fact they did not possess valid licenses as of
the transitional dates was determinative of their
inability to be covered by the injunctive remedy granted."
 
Sandy420

Sandy420

Well-Known Member
ALLARD APPEAL
8. On Jan 13 2015, Justice Phelan directed:
In view of Beemish's condition, if video conferencing from
a hospital is difficult if not impossible, the court has
no objection to attending at the hospital to take her
evidence."
9. Despite Beemish's condition, on Jan 6 2015, her attorney
John Conroy had sought an adjournment of the Action for their
permits to await the Supreme Court of Canada's Owen Smith
decision challenging the prohibition on "dried" marijuana
which does absolute nothing for Beemish nor Hebert nor other
patients with now-invalid permits who were cut off for non-
medical reasons. Justice Manson denied the motion to adjourn
the trial slated for Feb 23 2015.
10. On Jan 16, Conroy filed an appeal of Manson J.'s Dec 30
2014 Amended Order but failed to file a motion for immediate
interim relief. Having failed to stall the action for permits
to the unrelated Smith "derivatives" appeal, Conroy is now
wasting time below rather than seeking relief from the court
above which had just ruled his clients had a Charter right for
which no Charter remedy had been provided. Such high-
probability immediate relief is evidently not on John Conroy's
agenda.
PART II - ISSUES IN QUESTION
11. The learned judge erred in:
1) making non-medical reasons determinative of medical need in
a balance of convenience between the viability of the MMPR and
the viability of the patients;
2) failing to consider high-dosage patients in imposing the
150 gram possession limit.
PART III - ARGUMENTS
1) NON-MEDICAL REASONS DETERMINATIVE OF MEDICAL NEED
a) Medical need determined by expiry dates
12. Though it was clear Justice Manson ordered expiry dates
and permit changes to be made determinative of sufficient
medical need to merit Charter Relief, the Court of Appeal
couldn't fathom why Judge Manson had granted the Right to Life
for all but had not granted a remedy to Left-Out Beemish and
Changed-Out Hebert. But rather than expand the remedy
themselves, the Court of Appeal sent it back below to find out
if the judge had simply forgotten to grant half of Canada's
medicinal marijuana patients access to their medicine or
whether he intended leaving them without any Charter remedy
for their Charter Right to Life.
13. Justice Manson refused to reconsider grandfathering
Possess Permits for all patients with grandfathered Grow
Permits nor permitting any permit changes. The Court of Appeal
had failed to consider the need to "avoid unduly impacting on
the viability of the MMPR and to take into consideration the
practical implications of the MMAR regime no longer being in
force."
14. How would grand-fathering all possess permits with all
grand-fathered grow permits or amending current permits be
unduly impacting on the viability of the MMPR? What are the
implications of extending the MMAR for amendments as well as
for permits that are so inconveniently impractical?
15. Without making expiry dates determinative of medical need,
the court would have had to cut everyone off which would have
eliminated unduly impacting on the viability of the MMPR most
completely. Though anguish and suffering may go unnoticed,
loss of patient "viability" might be too large to be ignored.
16. Making expiry dates determinative of medical need offered
the excuse to cut at least some patients off by distinguishing
between those with still-valid ATPs whose medical need the
Court had to acknowledge and those who failed to renew whose
medical need the Court no longer had to acknowledge. Without
such a non-medical criterium applied, there would be no "Some
get their prescribed medication and others do not!" All would
or all would not.
17. The judge did not consider why half the 24,000 Exemptees
failed to renew their cherished permits, that Health Canada's
Destroy-To-Renew Order and the prohibitive cost of the
replacement commercial product had coerced them into outlawry
with their unchanged medical need tided over while awaiting
court developments by their now-illegal stock. Could the Court
really believe that upon Health Canada's command, half the
24,000 patients who did not renew had been miraculously
healed, Halleluiah, and now no longer needed any supply? that
it was now safe and just to cut off 12,000 of Canada's sickest
qualified patients permanently from any re-supply?
18. Robert Roy's ATP expired on Mar 18 2014, the very day of
the Allard hearing. Had Judge Manson ruled that day, Roy's ATP
would have been extended! But the judge taking only 3 days to
write his decision resulted in Robert Roy no longer being
deemed medically needy! Had the judge not taken the extra
time, Robert Roy would still be exempted! Roy was Left Out
with no more access nor continuing supply due wholly to Judge
Manson's unfortunate 3-day delay.
19. It is submitted Robert Roy had as much a valid medical
need on the day after as on the day of the hearing! There was
no Halleluiah moment! Though indirectly preventing resumption
of Robert Roy's re-supply may seem less damnable than directly
cutting off his supply, the end result is the same.
20. Stephen Burrows cut his tumor in half but having been Left
Out, may no longer lawfully continue his treatment. His access
wasn't cut off, he was just coerced to stop growing and then
not allowed to resume. David Shea succumbed to his cancer
while his action for exemption was stayed below. There is the
probability more of the thousands of patients who were
deprived of access to their prescribed medication have
similarly perished or suffered in irreparable harm in silent
anonymity.
21. But just how much is the viability of the program actually
unduly impacted by a mere 25,000 self-producers among millions
of potential cannabis users in Canada? That's 1% or 2% of the
MMPR market at most. It wasn't worth the sacrifice to deprive
12,000 patients of their supply for hardly any extra viability
of the MMPR.
b) Medical need determined by permit changes
 
Sandy420

Sandy420

Well-Known Member
22. The Court of Appeal ordered that the repeal of the MMAR
with no infrastructure remaining to amend Hebert's permit be
addressed. Justice Manson refused to reconsider his ruling
explaining that the practical implications of a repealed MMAR
precluded amending old permits. If a patient's moves, his
permit can't. If his Designated Grower dies, his exemption
dies with him. Again, there are no reasons why amending
permits should occasion a change in medical need nor present
Health Canada with so insurmountable practical implications
that it is more convenient to deprive the patients of their
permits.
23. Just what are the practical implications of extending the
Health Canada MMAR Amendments Bureau while laying off the rest
of the staff? Retaining some staff to process the odd permit
change seems a bureaucratic mole-hill rather than the mountain
of red-tape the court deemed too much of an inconvenience for
Health Canada to surmount compared to the simply depriving the
patients of permits for their medicinal supply. Besides, the
Ministry of Transport updates permits in real time.
24. Making non-medical reasons like expiry dates and permit
changes determinative of medical need allows some patients to
be deprived. Since they couldn't deprive all patients to cause
a complete catastrophe, expiry dates allowed a partial
catastrophe that cut out the maximum number of past patients
while no permit changes continues the catastrophe that cuts
out the maximum number of patients from now on. Not all are
cut off from their medication, only as many as possible!
25. Having a treatment determined by the state of one's permit
and not on the state of one's health is not a medical decision
though it has the same effect as if the doctor had cut off
their prescriptions. Since the dictionary defines "viable:
capable of living; Viability: capacity to live, it would seem
that rather than the viability of the MMPR program, the
viability of the patient should have been the court's major
concern.
2) 150-GRAM CAP FAILS TO CONSIDER HIGH-DOSAGE PATIENTS
26. Given my current prescription, the 150-gram possession
limit too severely limits me in my life. How then can Exemptee
Michael Pearce prescribed 260 grams/day "live" with the 150-
gram possession cap? Having no highly dosed patients among the
Allard Plaintiffs meant no one has been hurt enough by that
limit to raise the plea for immediate relief.
27. The 150-gram cap has no bearing on market viability of the
MMPR nor any practical implications; it only bears on the
increased inconvenience of the patients!
28. And though Justice Manson based his 150-gram possession
monthly cap on Health Canada's estimated average use of 1-3
grams per day, in the same decision Justice Manson cites an
actual average prescribed dosage of 17.7 grams/day . A 540
gram cap might be the accurate number.
29. If the Allard Action is dismissed on Feb 23 2015 with the
interim Order, it could leave everyone cut off. Applicant
seeks expeditious relief from the Court of Appeal lest the
worst happen below.
PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT
Applicant seeks an Order that:
1) Applicant may intervene in appeal A-31-15;
2) Applicant's MMAR permits are deemed to be amended to
reflect the needed changes described in Applicant's Affidavit.
3) Applicant's possession limit be changed to 30 times
Applicant's personal daily dosage.
Dated at ________________________ on _______________ 2015.
______________________________
Applicant's Signature:
Name: ____________________________
Address: _________________________
__________________________________
Tel/fax: _________________________
Email: ___________________________
AUTHORITIES
No Authorities relied on
REGULATIONS CITED
No regulations cited.
File No: _________
FCA No: A-31-14
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
___________________________
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM
For the Applicant:
Name: ____________________________
Address: _________________________
__________________________________
Tel/fax: _________________________
Email: ___________________________
File No: _________
FCA No: A-31-14
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
___________________________
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
RECORD OF MOTION
For the Applicant:
Name: ____________________________
Address: _________________________
__________________________________
Tel/fax: _________________________
Email: ___________________________
JCT: Now it's up to you to spread the word. Finalized forms
will be ready
 
WHATFG

WHATFG

Well-Known Member
I am really wondering why Conroy didn't do this....the only explanation I can think of is because it's a constitutional matter, the outcome would affect everyone....are you going to attend the hearing? What are you doing up at this ungodly hour?
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
WHATFG said:
I am really wondering why Conroy didn't do this....the only explanation I can think of is because it's a constitutional matter, the outcome would affect everyone....are you going to attend the hearing? What are you doing up at this ungodly hour?
Click to expand...
I'm sure it's a "one thing at a time" sorta deal...
Lots on the plate after all to deal with, many years of prohibition have to be deprogrammed from peoples minds!
It's going to be a fight!!! :)
 
bigmanc

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
So, i see the instructions about cut off the bottom of the sheet with the appropriate information. I dont know if its just me but the language seems a bit choppy...maybe its the beer and dabs. What exactly does a "left out" need to do? this guy seems to be really hammering conroys handleing of the case.
 
WHATFG

WHATFG

Well-Known Member
Everybody take a breath...in through the nose...out through the mouth......hmmmmm...it appears to me that jct is looking for immediate relief yes? Conroy is in it for the long CONSTITUTIONAL haul...not that either is wrong, rather they are both right...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top