From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: On Mar 21 2014, Federal Court Justice Manson's ruling   
   in Allard v. HMTQ rejected their motion for Interim   
   Exemptions (without limit) and instead grand-fathered all   
   patients' grow permits back to the September 30 2013   
   announcement of the Health Canada shut-down order but those   
   who had obeyed Health Canada's Directive to shut down before   
   April 1 were now no longer valid and Left-Out of his remedy.   
   Two of the four Allard Plaintiffs were Left-Out as well as   
   Gold Stars Stephen Burrows and Robert Roy. And there was no   
   way for those given his remedy to amend their permits so any   
   move, loss of grower, any needed change at all meant losing   
   their permits.   
      
   The Government appealed letting the valid ATPs stay alive   
   and the Allards cross-appealed to expand the scope of the   
   remedy for the Left Outs. Stephen Burrows and Robert Roy   
   (whose ATP expired only 3 days before the decision on the   
   date of the Mar 18 trial, (had Manson ruled right away,   
   Robert could have renewed his ATP on his last day) were also   
   Left-Outs and had filed their own Actions seeking interim   
   exemptions for Personal Medical Use, not without limitation.   
      
   But Justice Phelan dismissed them ruling "Personal Medical   
   Use" was the same as the Allards' "without limitation!" So   
   they both appealed and asked the higher court to remedy   
   their being left out with Interim Exemptions for Personal   
   Medical use, Stephen to finish curing his tumor.   
      
   The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed their motions with no   
   reasons. Both applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme   
   Court of Canada and for interim exemptions for PMU. No   
   action on those motions yet.   
      
   On Dec 15 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the   
   Crown Allard appeal but sent the decision to leave Beemish   
   and Hebert out back to Manson in case he forgot them after   
   ruling they had a right to a remedy.   
      
   On Dec 30 or 31, Justice Manson issued his ruling:   
      
   Federal Court   
      
   Date: 20141230   
   Docket: T-2030-13   
   Citation: 2014 FC 1260   
      
   Vancouver, BC, December 30, 2014   
      
   Between   
      
   NEIL ALLARD, TANYA BEEMISH, DAVID HEBERT, SHAWN DAVEY   
   Applicants/Plaintiffs   
      
   and   
      
   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA   
   Respondent   
      
   AMENDED ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER   
      
   Upon having regard to the Federal Court of Appeal's decision   
   dated December 15 2014, wherein it was held at paras. 20, 21   
   and 23:   
   "...although he provides a right (the interlocutory   
   injunction) to the four (4) respondents - Mr. Allard, Mr.   
   Davey, Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert - he does not, in   
   contrast, explain why he deprives two (2) respondents - Ms.   
   Beemish and Mr. Hebert - of a remedy...   
      
   [After careful reading of the judge's reasons, I am left to   
   speculate as to his intention. [20] In these circumstances,   
   I cannot address properly the determination the respondents   
   are seeking as]   
      
   I am unable to understand whether the judge intended to   
   exclude Ms. Beemish and Mr Hebert or simply forgot to deal   
   with their situation...   
      
   [In other words, the judge's reasons do not allow this Court   
   to perform its appellate function. [21] After considering   
   making an assessment of the evidence, I believe that]   
      
   the wiser course is to return the matter to the judge with a   
   direction that he specifically addresses the situation of   
   Ms. Beemish and Mr Hebert...   
      
   [[23] I would consequently dismiss the appeal with costs and   
   I would allow the cross-appeal without costs.]   
      
   I would remit the matter back to the judge for determination   
   solely on the issue of the scope of the remedy, more   
   particularly with respect to Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert, in   
   accordance with these reasons.   
      
   AND UPON considering the written representations of the   
   parties dated Dec 22, 23 and 24, 2014;   
      
   THIS COURT ORDERS that:   
      
   [1] The Plaintiffs request a reconsideration of my decision   
   of Mar 31, [Jct: Mar 21] 2014, to   
   (i) order that all patients that held a valid Authorization   
   to Possess (ATP) on March 21 2013 [Jct: 2014], or in the   
   alternative, September 30 2013, are covered by the Exemption   
   Order I made, and to   
   (ii) order that all patients exempted by the Order,   
   including Mr. Hebert and Ms. Beemish, and others similarly   
   situated, can change their address form with Health Canada   
   pending trial.   
      
   JCT: So all they want is for those the Court of Appeal says   
   be may have forgotten to be remedied and for the lack of   
   infrastructure to amend ATPs be covered.   
      
   [2] As stated above, the Federal Court of Appeal remitted   
   the issue of the scope of the interlocutory injunction for   
   clarification only, to specify whether the injunction   
   applied to Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert. There is no   
   reconsideration to be made and certainly no expansion of the   
   scope of my decision to apply to anyone other than the   
   plaintiffs in the proceeding.   
      
   [3] In considering the balance of convenience, I   
   specifically chose the relevant transitional dates of   
   September 30 2013 and March 21 2014 to limit the   
   availability of injunctive relief to extend only to those   
   individuals who held valid licenses to either possess of   
   produce marijuana for medical purposes as of those relevant   
   dates.   
      
   JCT: So he intended to cut off everyone who had shut down   
   upon Health Canada's Directive. He didn't forget, he   
   intended that Robert's exemption expiring 3 days to soon be   
   used to deprive him of his meds!   
      
   [4] Accordingly, only those plaintiffs who had a valid   
   license on September 30 2013 could continue producing   
   marijuana for medical purposes and only those plaintiffs who   
   held a valid authorization to possess marijuana for medical   
   purposes at the time of my decision on March 21 2014 could   
   continue to so possess.   
      
   JCT: There it is. He intended to cut off everyone who had   
   been directed to shut down and had obeyed and only those who   
   spent the money to renew for no good reason keep their meds.   
   Note he doesn't mention that though grow permits are grand-   
   fathered back to Oct 1 2013, they aren't valid without the   
   possess permit that wasn't grandfathered with it.   
      
   [5] In considering the balance of convenience, the remedy I   
   granted was intended to avoid unduly impacting the viability   
   of the Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) and   
   to take into consideration the practical implications of the   
   MMAR regime no longer being in force.   
      
   JCT: How could extending exemptions to self-produce impact   
   on the viability of the MMPR? Oh right, he wanted to force   
   as many out of self-grow onto commercial market as possible   
   to enhance the viability of the MMPR! People lose their   
   self-grows so he can enhance the viability of the MMPR!!   
   Even if it might end up killing patients!! What's more   
   important to a judge, financial viability or patients'   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)