injunction/court case updates
- Thread starter doingdishes
- Start date
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
when i talked to the SCoC about my "Leave to Appeal" the lady said I probably wouldn't be heard before the election but then went on to say the Government doesn't really matter as they are independent. that shows with the Smith case but what are they waiting for????
once we get a decision we can do something. if we win, the Crown has to file their appeal. if we lose, we get to file our appeal..and Goldstars get our kick at the can.
either way, we can make a move when we get a decision...so COME ON!!!
Allard being victorious would be great. But I'm less then confident phalen will side aginst mason. It's a cluster fuck atm. Conroy seems content with how things are going. He's getting paid.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i believe that Phelan will rule on the case and that Manson was only responsible for the "carefully crafted" injunction.
i am still hopeful that we will win but the question is when will we get this damn decision. what more does he have to think about or rule on?? is it sitting on his desk waiting for "release"??
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i decided to re-read your post. there are some holes here.
"Everyone similarly situated has a 'stake', not just the 4 plaintiffs in this case. Turmel knows better" if that is the case, why did my paperwork get dismissed my Justice Dawson stating I don't have "standing" only the 4 plaintiffs do....I am arguing that I DO have standing.
" If you are protected by the injunction, why would you appeal?" i am not covered so that's why i am fighting...for ALL of us left-outs. Turmel does have it right in my opinion. CONroy screwed anyone who needs changes and that's about half of the people in this case. if CONroy had the one more plaintiff with current paperwork but needed changes, we wouldn't be having this discussion. only the people who let their paperwork expire would be left out.
And don't forget every Canadian who's only had legal access to mmj thru the mmpr! We're all left out.. And yet we can't move forward all cases are stayed pending allard. Fuck.
martyg
Well-Known Member
So if your not one of the left outs do you still file goldstars??
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
absolutely!!
Goldstars is for repeal. it's so you can grow what you need (not what you want because that might be crazy..haha) when you need it.
you file with with a dollar value but don't expect a dime. in order to file that way, you need to put a dollar figure. it's no get rich quick thing so don't let the $! million plus go to your head.
i did dream how nice it would be to have a few million but then reality came back and i moved on....but it was nice for a while.
it's only $2 and you could get it so no need for yearly renewals etc
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Without knowing the particulars of your case I can't comment further, however if you are similarly situated to any of the Allard defendants then whatever the outcome is applies to you.
It's possible Justice Dawson ruled this way because you are similarly situated to an Allard plaintiff so your case would be stayed pending Allard. Non-duplication of efforts with regards to similar cases is a long held legal principle, it's not something Conroy magically invented just to make your life difficult.
From your last paragraph, it sounds like you are not similarly situated to any of the 4 defendants so it only makes sense you wouldn't be covered. In regards to paperwork changes, in order to have that 'covered' you would need a defendant who had a current paperwork situation as per the injunction but had recently moved, which may have not been available at the time. Additionally, Manson was very clear that his injunction did not cover (for reasons that are up for debate) all of the 4, so having another plantiff with the moving situation does not guarantee the injunction would have come out different.
I really can't restate the purpose of interlocutory motions enough. There is a balance to be struck with the will of parliament, and for better or worse that's another long held principle in the legal system, and again not something Conroy has magically invented to make people's lives difficult. This, along with the 'hurry up already' comments leads me to believe there's a lack of respect for our legal system at play here, and it's equally bad if that's held by the conservatives or the pro-cannabis movement.
The courts aren't a fixall, they are present to ensure legislation is consistent with what the supreme law of Canada says, and if a judge decides that the MMPR is constitutionally sound (after the eventual appeal train) then that's the precedent that's going to be enshrined. It's really unfortunate that the misinformation about a 'right' to use cannabis is repeated so often because it really seems to kick up a lot of irrational feelings. Allard will take as long as Phelan feels it needs to take.
torontoke
Well-Known Member
i think I'm not the only one on here but I think I have a right to a plant. What makes a judge have the "right" to decide on anything that could change the lives of an entire country? Ya I guess I do have a problem with the court system and the way the facade has allowed to progress. I'm going out on a limb to assume you work in the field so naturally your biased into having faith in the broken system but some of us aren't. The courts and the way things run currently is a joke to anyone awake long enough to notice. All designed to make money hand over fist for everyone but the person fighting for their rights.
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
No, I have nothing to do with any LP's (other than they will never see a dime from me), or the legal profession. I am 'biased' towards the rule of law.
A judge has the right, because that's their job. Let's not forget the original precedent for access to medical cannabis came from a court case where the judge decided on something that affected the entire country. So that goes both ways, you can't be for the legal system when it works in your favor and against it when it doesn't (which is more or less what the conservatives do).
I don't disagree that the current system is not working in the patients favor, but the rule of law goes all the way back to the Magna Carta. Otherwise, we just have rule by decree (which is what Harper is trying to do / has been doing). So don't cast aspersions at the judges, who are doing their job, but at the wannabe-autocrats in office. Real change on this has to come from Parliament, and we know that's not going to happen until we kick the current bunch of idiots out.
torontoke
Well-Known Member
What I meant but it clearly didn't out right was it was those judges that gave us that right. And hc drove the point home by putting a list of criteria that one must fit into to have the "right" if a Dr is willing to sign than we have rights.
I think the fact that your post had the appeal train in mind aswell means we aren't far apart with our thoughts on the court system. That's where my problem is. They can keep appealing using our own tax dollars to fight and that's not right.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i'm a patient who has current paperwork needing change...like 20,000+ others that CONroy left out by not having that extra plaintiff with current paperwork but needing changes. i think CONroy was lazy (at least i hope it was laziness because otherwise he's not that smart or he left us out on purpose) by not having someone current. he took Beemish and Hebert who let their paperwork lapse due to their circumstances.
if you go back to my previous post about the stab in the back, there is a lot more CONroy messed up on.
Dawson ruled I didn't have standing because only the 4 have standing. it was that simple. That's why i filed "Leave to Appeal" arguing I do have standing...if i win, it will be for all of us leftouts.
CONroy designed it that way. Nadine Bews has pointed that out in my previous post. i tagged you in that. i am curious to see if you agree with her on how he dropped the ball. it seems CONroy designed the case to leave a lot of us out instead of filing us a group. he also made it so the only person he answers to is Jason Wilcox and not any of us patients who donated $$ to this case. it's no wonder he made the form as irrevocable...he knew we'd find some skeletons in his closet. he will never get another dime from me. he mis step caused me thousands of dollars
i will go back and post some more of her info about CONroy and the Coalition
i feel taken advantage of by them for sure. we blindly believed they were going to help but it seemed that isn't the case
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i would love to have us on a Skype call with CONroy and ask him directly why he did what he did. that would be interesting in my opinion.
i would absolutely LOVE to hear his answers
i would absolutely LOVE to hear his answers
martyg
Well-Known Member
Have you tried calling him? In all seriousness I have called him and he has called back within. A few hrs. I was at work though but he talked to my wife more than 30 minutes on the phone. Just call leave message saying it's about something else when he calls back ask what you want
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
I've corresponded with Nadine before and I don't doubt what she's saying, believe me I'm no fan of the shadiness that has gone on with regards to the coalition. It should have been a representative coalition and not centered around one person.
In regards to Justice Dawson's ruling, there's a difference here between having standing to appeal and having the verdict apply in your situation. If Allard wins, that means that all medically approved persons would be able to grow. With regards to standing to appeal I believe it was denied because the case is already in motion and more plaintiffs can't be added at the moment.
That being said, I'd really like an opinion on the injunction appeal situation from someone outside the Allard case, perhaps Paul Lewin or someone similar (or even a lawyer completely outside of the cannabis sphere). I've looked into it a little bit but it seems like a pretty unique situation so there's not a lot of previous case law to go on. I agree the best thing would be to get a direct explanation from Conroy himself, we shouldn't have to go through Wilcox.
In regards to Justice Dawson's ruling, there's a difference here between having standing to appeal and having the verdict apply in your situation. If Allard wins, that means that all medically approved persons would be able to grow. With regards to standing to appeal I believe it was denied because the case is already in motion and more plaintiffs can't be added at the moment.
That being said, I'd really like an opinion on the injunction appeal situation from someone outside the Allard case, perhaps Paul Lewin or someone similar (or even a lawyer completely outside of the cannabis sphere). I've looked into it a little bit but it seems like a pretty unique situation so there's not a lot of previous case law to go on. I agree the best thing would be to get a direct explanation from Conroy himself, we shouldn't have to go through Wilcox.
martyg
Well-Known Member
Paul Lewin been in contact with him as well
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
That's what I was thinking as well, but really it doesn't have to be (and probably better if it isn't) a cannabis-related lawyer.
Basically the elements are that an injunction issued at the trial court level was appealed by who it was in favor of as insufficient, and a higher court (appeal level) seemed to be open to varying. So probably any lawyer with interlocutory experience, even if this specific situation didn't come up would probably know at least a little bit about whether it was a good move or not.
Basically the elements are that an injunction issued at the trial court level was appealed by who it was in favor of as insufficient, and a higher court (appeal level) seemed to be open to varying. So probably any lawyer with interlocutory experience, even if this specific situation didn't come up would probably know at least a little bit about whether it was a good move or not.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i have tried that...when i first saw the discontinuance..I left a message asking about it but i have never received a call back. his office says he might not be able to get back to me.
when he first started doing this, i called and he called back....not any more. i had previously spoke to Danielle as well