From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Some good news and bad news out of the Allard decision   
   at the Federal Court of Appeal yesterday. Here's the   
   decision parsed:   
      
   A-174-14   
   NEIL ALLARD, TANYA BEEMISH, DAVID HEBERT and SHAWN DAVEY   
   Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 24, 2014.   
   Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 15, 2014.   
   Date: 20141215 Docket: A-174-14 Citation: 2014 FCA 298   
   CORAM: NADON J.A. WEBB J.A. BOIVIN J.A.   
      
   BOIVIN J.A.   
   [1] This appeal is from a decision of Mr. Justice Manson of   
   the Federal Court (the judge) dated March 21, 2014.   
   [2] The judge exercised his discretion to grant an   
   interlocutory injunction to the respondents under s. 24(1)   
   of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of   
   the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada   
   Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11 (Charter), as well as under Rule   
   373(1) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.   
   [3] The judge's decision preserves certain rights that were   
   available under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations,   
   SOR/2001-227 (the MMAR) thus staying the full coming into   
   force of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations,   
   SOR/2013-119 (the MMPR) for the persons and classes of   
   persons covered by the order, pending determination of the   
   trial on the merits. The trial is currently scheduled to   
   commence on February 23, 2015.   
   [4] The underlying action is a claim that the MMPR violates   
   the respondents' section 7 Charter rights to life, liberty   
   and security of the person in a manner not in accordance   
   with the principles of fundamental justice. In particular,   
   the respondents challenge the MMPR's prohibition of the   
   personal production of marihuana for medical purposes and   
   the possession limit of 150 grams of dried marihuana.   
      
   JCT: No challenge to all the other impediments in the MMPR   
   kept over from the MMAR nor other serious flaws like LPs   
   being able to cancel your exemption "for business reasons!"   
      
   [5] Prior to the coming into force of the MMPR, the MMAR   
   provided for a licence scheme whereby eligible persons who   
   have a declaration signed by a medical practitioner are   
   issued an Authorization to Possess (ATP) marihuana.   
   Individuals who had an ATP could lawfully obtain access to   
   marihuana (i) through a Personal Production Licence pursuant   
   to which the individual was allowed to produce a determined   
   quantity of marihuana for his own use; (ii) through a   
   Designated Person Licence pursuant to which the individual   
   was able to designate another person to produce his or her   
   marihuana; (iii) by purchasing dried marihuana directly from   
   Health Canada which contracted with a private company to   
   produce and distribute marihuana.   
   [6] The Crown (appellant) appeals the interlocutory order on   
   the ground that the respondents failed to conclusively   
   establish irreparable harm. It submits that the evidence on   
   this point was at best speculative and the judge therefore   
   erred when he found the evidence sufficient to establish the   
   said harm.   
      
   JCT: Can't prove that not getting your medicine causes   
   irreparably harm "conclusively" enough for them.   
      
   The appellant also contends that the judge erred in finding   
   that this was a "clear case" in which the interests of the   
   respondents outweighed the public interest and thus that the   
   balance of convenience lay in favour of the respondents.   
      
   JCT: Yes, it's so much more important for the nation to keep   
   herb off the street than to keep patients alive.   
      
   [7] The respondents cross-appeal on the remedy and argue   
   that the judge erred in that he limited the remedy to too   
   narrow a group of medical marihuana users. The respondents   
   also submit that the judge ought to have recognized that the   
   150-gram limit on possession under the MMPR does constitute   
   irreparable harm as it affected the respondents. They   
   further argued at hearing before this Court that it impacted   
   on the respondents' mobility. Accordingly, the respondents   
   submit that the judge's order is too narrow in scope and   
   ought to be broadened.   
      
   I. The Appeal   
   [8] For the following reasons, I am of the view that the   
   judge did not misapprehend the facts, proceed on an   
   erroneous principle of law or insufficiently weigh a   
   relevant factor which would allow our Court to intervene on   
   a discretionary interlocutory order (Canada (Attorney   
   General) v. Simon, 2012 FCA 312, [2012] F.C.J. No. 1538   
   [Elsipogtog FCA] at para. 22 citing Manitoba (Attorney   
   General) v. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd., [1987] 1 S.C.R.   
   110 at pp. 154-156.).   
   [9] The judge reviewed the legislative schemes at issue, as   
   well as the jurisprudence that gave rise to the requirement   
   that the government provide a legal source of marihuana for   
   persons with a medical need for the drug. He also referred   
   to the three sets of regulations governing access to medical   
   marihuana in Canada, and described the individual   
   applicants. He then summarized the affidavit evidence for   
   both sides, the relief sought at trial, the interlocutory   
   order sought, and outlined the issues before him.   
   [10] In the analysis portion of his reasons, the judge   
   agreed with the parties that the applicable   
   test for obtaining an injunctive relief is the tri-partite   
   test established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Manitoba   
   (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd., [1987]   
   1 S.C.R. 110 and affirmed in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada   
   (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311:   
   1. Is there a serious issue to be tried?   
   2. Will the applicants suffer irreparable harm if the   
   interlocutory relief does not issue?   
   3. Does the balance of convenience favour the issuance of   
   the interlocutory relief requested?   
   [11] Before the judge, the parties did not dispute that   
   there was a serious issue to be tried. The bulk of the   
   judge's analysis, accordingly, relates to the irreparable   
   harm and balance of convenience branches of the test.   
   [12] On the issue of irreparable harm, the judge accepted   
   the principle that economic hardship could contribute to a   
   finding of irreparable harm in combination with other   
   factors and on the basis of jurisprudence of our Court   
   accepting serious economic hardship on individuals as a   
   relevant factor to consider in the context of interlocutory   
   relief. The judge was convinced on the evidence before him,   
   that the price increase from the personal production under   
   the MMAR to the cost of purchase under the MMPR would   
   severely impoverish the applicants. This was an inference   
   that was open for him to make and was supported by the   
   jurisprudence (see Elsipogtog FCA at paras. 37-38).   
      
   JCT: So not being able to afford LP prices but being able to   
   afford home-grown matters.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)