For clarification or those who think this is a setback, which n my opinion it is not: 1. The Smith case was first decided in April 2012 in the BC Supreme Court and relates to the limitation in the MMAR to dried marihuana prohibiting extracts – this case found that to be too restrictive on the ambit and scope of the section 7 Charter rights and struck it down, but it only applied to British Columbia because the BC Supreme Court is not binding on any other provinces. It does not cover the right to produce for ones self or have a caregiver do so, but it does address the ambit and scope of the section 7 rights in this medical marijuana context; 2. The BC Court of Appeal decision came down on August 14, 2014 and upheld the trial judge below, except that there was one dissent so 2 judges agreed with the judge below and one disagreed. This gave the government an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. That court has not given leave to appeal any medical marihuana cases in the past, including Parker and Mernagh. Consequently, this will be the first time that our highest court passes upon the and and scope of the medical marihuana exemption, and specifically in relation to the limitation to dried marihuana; 3. The Supreme Court of Canada has decided to expedite the appeal in Smith, requiring the appellants record, factum (written argument) and book of authorities to be filed by January 8, 2015 – next Thursday. Intervener leave motions are due by January 29, 2015 with replies due February 9, 2015. The respondents record, factum and book of authorities is due February 26, 2015(3 days after Allard is to start). Intervener, factums and books are due March 10,2015(3 days before Allard is supposed to end) and oral submissions of all parties March 20, 2015.(And day on which arguments are scheduled in Allard). A decision in Smith from the Supreme Court of Canada that will affect the whole country and not just BC with respect to the extracts question and will likely decide the extracts question for purposes of Allard, making it unnecessary to relitigate. 4. Allard challenges the omissions in the MMPR with respect to personal production and caregiver production, as well as the dried marihuana limitation continued in the MMPR and the 150 g limit. To see the timeline in that case, in all the work we have done to date please go to johnconroy and click on the MMAR constitutional challenge button. Our rebuttal expert reports will likely be posted next week.You will see that our Plaintiffs affidavits are due January 9, 2015, which is next Friday in the governments are due January 23, 2015. The trial is set for 3 weeks commencing February 23 and the last date for oral submissions is currently set for April 30 and May 1. In other words, the 2 cases overlap in time with the same counsel involved assisting each other. 4. An adjournment of Allard will mean that those grandfathered will be grandfathered beyond May 1 until the completion of the trial in the future. Unfortunately, those who fell between the cracks do not benefit directly from this, but it does enable us to once again seek variance, especially for those who had events occur after the injunction was granted. 5. Given these developments which were not anticipated. At the commencement of Allard, it is our view that we should all await the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and then continue following its guidance in Smith.
Posted on: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:57:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015