Formal Notice from John Conroy QC 2014-06-05 This will confirm that as a result of the gaps in the Allard injunction that does not allow for a change in production site addresses and imposes 150 g limit on possession, we have been exploring ways and means to try and fix these problems. The following options have been or are being considered: 1. Try and get back in front of Manson J. to have him fill the gaps. This seems to be precluded by the Federal Court rules because a trial date has been set, and there is an interim appeal pending; 2. Start a new application on behalf of a patient with this particular problem. Unfortunately, given the Federal Crown position they will take advantage of the times set out in the rules and we wont be able to request a hearing date for at least 120 days from the commencement of the proceedings. Therefore, this solution is not practical; 3. Phelan J. in the other F.C.T.D. cases, groups them into 5 categories with the 1st two being covered by Allard, and the last 2 not fitting within Allard at all, leaving the 3rd group as those who fell between the cracks for one reason or another in Allard. I am trying to determine if any, in that 3rd group are production site change or 150 g limit situations so that we could make an application on behalf of one of them in writing before that judge expeditiously to try and solve the problem. I understand the crown is supposed to categorize the different plaintiffs into the 5 groups and Im still trying to get information in that regard. This is taking longer than expected. 4. Deal with the matter on appeal as it is our primary ground in the cross-appeal. We have received the appeal books and the crown has 30 days, which are almost up, to file their written argument and we then have 30 days to respond and submit our cross-appeal. So we might get this heard in the fall if we can get an early date. There is provision for us seeking leave to introduce new evidence with respect to the facts on the appeal. Consequently I am proposing that I obtain an affidavit from Jason Wilcox, as the coordinator of the Coalition from each of the persons who has sent us their contact information indicating that they have fallen through the cracks primarily as a result of the inability to change their production site but also in some cases because of the possession limit. Consequently I would ask all those persons who have indicated to Jason Wilcox that they need to change their production site and cant do so because of the Allard injunction makes no provision for same to send Jason a one-page document that sets out the following: i) their name, address, etc. and contact information; ii) their ATP and PPL or DG permit numbers and dates of expiry; iii) the details as to why they have to change their site or can no longer continue with the existing site and whether or not they have a new site to move it to where they can lawfully continue, i.e. in the correct zone, etc.; iv) If applicable, the details as to how the 150 g limit is problematic in their situation and any suggested solutions specific to their situation. I will then plan to put an affidavit together from Jason attaching all of these documents as exhibits and will seek leave to have this evidence introduced on the appeal to show the problem in that regard. Those of you who had your ATP expire before March 21, 2014, in my opinion, need to remedy your possession situation (as opposed to your production situation) by going back to your doctor or a doctor and obtaining from him or her a document or note of some kind that stands alone or is attached to your previous MMAR Physician Application portion that prescribes or authorizes you to possess cannabis pursuant to section 53 of the Narcotic Control regulations(see paragraphs [7] and[8] of the reasons for judgment of Manson J.). While there is no limit as to what you can possess on your person under that regulation, in my opinion, one should try and adhere to it, if at all possible. Those who need more than 150 g on their person when they are out and about might consider getting a similar document from their doctor to that effect as a possible interim way to cover off that problem as well. Please understand and make your doctor understand that you are NOT asking for a medical document pursuant to the MMPR, but a note under the NCR. John W. Conroy QC Conroy & Company Barrister & Solicitor 2459 Pauline Street Abbotsford, B.C. Canada V2S 3S1 Webpage: johnconroy Email: jconroy@johnconroy Tel: (604) 852 5110 Fax: (604)859 3361
Posted on: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 00:00:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015