Predictions
- Thread starter bigmanc
- Start date
LIVE UPDATES cont'd. at the Federal Court of Appeals.
Allard et al. and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2014 FC 280
The Crown is looking for a "suspension case" thus covering only the plaintiffs and not those patients across Canada.
"Balance of convenience" is being argued based in regards to upholding public safety vs. protecting against irreparable harm to the patients.
The Crown is arguing that Justice Manson erred in the balance of convenience vs. Public Safety argument.
Kirk Tousaw, Owen Smith's Attoroney, GOES UP:
Mr. Tousaw is arguing that the evidence submitted DID in fact prove irreparable harm. He readdresses WHY this is so. Mr. Tousaw argues the plaintiff's affidavits remain uncontested - the Crown had its chance to explore costs issues during cross examination of the affidavits.
Mr. Tousaw is arguing that irreparable harm can only be proven by virtue of probable harm - which falls in line with the standing case law.
Allard et al. and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2014 FC 280
The Crown is looking for a "suspension case" thus covering only the plaintiffs and not those patients across Canada.
"Balance of convenience" is being argued based in regards to upholding public safety vs. protecting against irreparable harm to the patients.
The Crown is arguing that Justice Manson erred in the balance of convenience vs. Public Safety argument.
Kirk Tousaw, Owen Smith's Attoroney, GOES UP:
Mr. Tousaw is arguing that the evidence submitted DID in fact prove irreparable harm. He readdresses WHY this is so. Mr. Tousaw argues the plaintiff's affidavits remain uncontested - the Crown had its chance to explore costs issues during cross examination of the affidavits.
Mr. Tousaw is arguing that irreparable harm can only be proven by virtue of probable harm - which falls in line with the standing case law.
LIVE UPDATES cont'd at the Federal Court of Appeals.
Allard et al. and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2014 FC 280.
Mr. Tousaw is still tearing the Crown apart over the issue of the respondents (the plaintiff's) arguments as being mere speculation. The Crown has argued that our side is "speculating" in our discernment of what constitutes irreparable harm. Tousaw is proving irreparable harm exists by revisiting accepted evidence.
Kirk is showing how the Crown has clearly never proven any error in Justice Manson's original court order.
[Three judges are all engaged in dialogue]
Tousaw continues: Forcing people underground goes against section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the principals of fundamental justice.
Kirk turns again to arguing irreparable harm and how this is not a suspension case. Tousaw argues that this is a challenge to address a limited issue of home production, not to suspend the MMPR.
[CINC Extract from the Memorandum of Fact and Law of the Respondents] FOUND HERE: http://www.johnconroy.com/mmar.htm
ss 44: The Appellants suggest that this is a "suspension" case not an "exemption" case and that Justice Manson failed to properly weigh the harm to the public interest that would allegedly flow from granting the Exemption Order. The Appellants say that this harm exists because the Exemption Order effectively suspended the MMPR for those that meet its terms and due to the number of persons in the discrete group represented by the Patients.
46. FACT: The MMPR is NOT suspended, whatsoever, for anyone including those meeting the terms of the Exemption Order. Those persons may still participate in the MMPR scheme by becoming clients of LPs if willing and financially able to do so. Only the provisions of the MMPR that repealed the long-standing MMAR RIGHT TO PRODUCE one's own medicine (or have a caregiver produce it) are affected by the Exemption Order.
Allard et al. and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2014 FC 280.
Mr. Tousaw is still tearing the Crown apart over the issue of the respondents (the plaintiff's) arguments as being mere speculation. The Crown has argued that our side is "speculating" in our discernment of what constitutes irreparable harm. Tousaw is proving irreparable harm exists by revisiting accepted evidence.
Kirk is showing how the Crown has clearly never proven any error in Justice Manson's original court order.
[Three judges are all engaged in dialogue]
Tousaw continues: Forcing people underground goes against section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the principals of fundamental justice.
Kirk turns again to arguing irreparable harm and how this is not a suspension case. Tousaw argues that this is a challenge to address a limited issue of home production, not to suspend the MMPR.
[CINC Extract from the Memorandum of Fact and Law of the Respondents] FOUND HERE: http://www.johnconroy.com/mmar.htm
ss 44: The Appellants suggest that this is a "suspension" case not an "exemption" case and that Justice Manson failed to properly weigh the harm to the public interest that would allegedly flow from granting the Exemption Order. The Appellants say that this harm exists because the Exemption Order effectively suspended the MMPR for those that meet its terms and due to the number of persons in the discrete group represented by the Patients.
46. FACT: The MMPR is NOT suspended, whatsoever, for anyone including those meeting the terms of the Exemption Order. Those persons may still participate in the MMPR scheme by becoming clients of LPs if willing and financially able to do so. Only the provisions of the MMPR that repealed the long-standing MMAR RIGHT TO PRODUCE one's own medicine (or have a caregiver produce it) are affected by the Exemption Order.
LIVE UPDATES cont'd at the Federal Court of Appeals.
Allard et al. and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2014 FC 280.
Tousaw continues to argue: this is an exemption case not a suspension case. The "cascade effect is not a suspension case". The judge has engaged Tousaw on the cascade issue.
If the court overturns the injunction then the courts will have a cascade effect on all courts in Canada.
The Judge just agreed with Tousaw that the impact exists against all patients - to what extent, he cannot yet say.
Allard et al. and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2014 FC 280.
Tousaw continues to argue: this is an exemption case not a suspension case. The "cascade effect is not a suspension case". The judge has engaged Tousaw on the cascade issue.
If the court overturns the injunction then the courts will have a cascade effect on all courts in Canada.
The Judge just agreed with Tousaw that the impact exists against all patients - to what extent, he cannot yet say.
Here's where I'm getting the updates from
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cannabis-In-Canada/1398043700476103?fref=nf
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cannabis-In-Canada/1398043700476103?fref=nf
