Wasn't able to do it all from my iPad so I had to go down and physically file my 4 copy's.
injunction/court case updates
- Thread starter doingdishes
- Start date
Will keep everyone posted! Gotta be a way for us.
Just read this article
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/a-case-in-the-supreme-court-might-completely-change-canadas-medical-marijuana-laws-283?utm_source=vicefbca
It's not hyperbole to note that Canada's current medical marijuana system is a confusing creature, even within the byzantine world of drug regulation. But in the next few months, Canada's most powerful judges could "dismantle the regime" if a lawyer can successfully argue that a ban on marijuana derivatives, such as edibles like pot brownies, violates medical users' constitutional rights.
Depending on the ruling in the first medical marijuana case to hit the Supreme Court, medical users and recreational consumers might one day be able to walk in to stores and buy medicinal pot products straight off the shelf, similar to plants like Echinacea or St. John's Wort.
The hearing is over and the upcoming ruling—which is likely months away—could be perceived as a big win for critically ill patients caught up in the justice system for possessing weed extracts.
The decision may also be a victory for the average stoner as well.
The case in question involves a former BC weed baker named Owen Edward Smith who was called to Canada's Supreme Court because the Crown wants to appeal his acquittal and convict him of being a drug dealer.
Back in 2009, he was charged with possessing a hefty amount of weed cookies and THC-containing cooking oils in an apartment in Victoria, BC.
At the time, he was the head baker of the now defunct Cannabis Buyer's Club of Canada (CBCC), an organization that sold edibles and oils to medical marijuana users. During the trial, it was revealed that only 5 to ten percent of CBCC members had medical authorizations for pot.
Canada's drug laws are very clear as far as possession and trafficking goes. Subsection 4(1) and Schedule II of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) spell out the illegality of ganja for the average Joe.
But 55(1) of the CDSA is a tricky clause that allows for exemptions to be made. Furthering this exemption is a foggy regulatory scheme—called the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations—which allows people with illnesses to legally access pot.
But only dried bud.
Smith's lawyer, Kirk Tousaw, argued that the exemption is arbitrary and opens up medical users to the heavy hand of the law if patients want to cook weed into a brownie rather than smoke a joint.
Tousaw argued it's easy in Canada for medical pot users to be cast into criminal territory for their behaviour.
To judges, he described a clinically ill female patient who was used as a witness during the trial.
According to Tousaw, she can lawfully hold nugs of weed. She can lawfully grind up the marijuana medicine and put it in a strainer.
"As long as she keeps the strainer in the water and drinks the tea with the dried marijuana, she's not breaking the law," he said. "But the minute she takes the tea strainer out of the cup, she's now holding and possessing THC, which is not lawful."
Meanwhile Paul Riley, the Crown prosecutor, suggested that the case isn't about drawing a line between dried pot and other forms of edible dope or hash oil.
He argued medical users claiming a non-existent exemption for extracts are just choosing an illegal form of medical marijuana over legally-available prescription drugs derived from pot, such as Marinol or Sativex.
He also pointed to the option for patients to vaporize weed instead of turning it into something else.
Canada's government is not the authority that saw dried marijuana become part of the medical arsenal for patients in the first place—it was instead a court-ruled exemption. Riley pointed this out during the hearing and also urged the court to allow "judicial deference," which is a term that means the court should step down and give leeway to the government.
Tousaw, however, saw the hearing as an opportunity to address ambiguities in the present medical marijuana situation.
"At some point the endless cycle of litigation on this issue needs to cease," Tousaw told the high court, saying the issue has been ambiguous for at least 15 years.
He said there needs to be a clear line of what is criminal and what is non-criminal.
Riley bore the brunt of sharp comments from the judges during his time to speak and it was suggested to him to stop using "lawyer words" to describe the legal issues at bar.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin asked Riley during the hearing to "confine your points to things that really matter."
VICE reached Tousaw by phone to ask how the hearing went.
Tousaw said he felt that the court was receptive to his arguments.
"You don't want to read too much into the tenor of the [judges'] questioning," he said. "But the Crown got the rougher end. We were in the happier position, because the other side has to convince to the court that the other [lower judges] got it wrong. It's nice to be on that side of the fence."
VICE asked about Tousaw's proposition to the court to remove medical marijuana from the CDSA , which would automatically make medical marijuana—in all of its numerous forms—part of Canada's Food and Drugs Act.
This would see it immediately classified as a "Natural Health Product."
"The remedy will be the part, I think, where I probably asked for the most," said Tousaw.
Justice Thomas Cromwell put the implications of Tousaw's bold request into context:
"You want us to dismantle the regime," he told Tousaw.
Tousaw described what his remedy would look like:
"The real change would be the consumer end. Consumers and patients can grow and possess without fear of criminal sanction. It takes patients out of the justice system and leaves commercial (buyers) and sellers highly regulated," he said.
Of course, you'd still need a doctor to perform the role of gatekeeper in order for patients to obtain weed. However, Tousaw told VICE that even physicians can create arbitrary rules to accessing medical pot, and added there is a legal precedent for the state to want to control or prohibit recreational marijuana.
He referenced a new policy being adopted by the BC College of Physicians that could see an age minimum of 25 placed on prescribing medical pot to ill patients, some of whom have neuropathic pain from ailments like cancer.
"Maybe doctors shouldn't be the gatekeepers, maybe we need to make it naturopathic doctors; people who are familiar with herbs that understand the actual science and risk profiles," he said.
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/a-case-in-the-supreme-court-might-completely-change-canadas-medical-marijuana-laws-283?utm_source=vicefbca
It's not hyperbole to note that Canada's current medical marijuana system is a confusing creature, even within the byzantine world of drug regulation. But in the next few months, Canada's most powerful judges could "dismantle the regime" if a lawyer can successfully argue that a ban on marijuana derivatives, such as edibles like pot brownies, violates medical users' constitutional rights.
Depending on the ruling in the first medical marijuana case to hit the Supreme Court, medical users and recreational consumers might one day be able to walk in to stores and buy medicinal pot products straight off the shelf, similar to plants like Echinacea or St. John's Wort.
The hearing is over and the upcoming ruling—which is likely months away—could be perceived as a big win for critically ill patients caught up in the justice system for possessing weed extracts.
The decision may also be a victory for the average stoner as well.
The case in question involves a former BC weed baker named Owen Edward Smith who was called to Canada's Supreme Court because the Crown wants to appeal his acquittal and convict him of being a drug dealer.
Back in 2009, he was charged with possessing a hefty amount of weed cookies and THC-containing cooking oils in an apartment in Victoria, BC.
At the time, he was the head baker of the now defunct Cannabis Buyer's Club of Canada (CBCC), an organization that sold edibles and oils to medical marijuana users. During the trial, it was revealed that only 5 to ten percent of CBCC members had medical authorizations for pot.
Canada's drug laws are very clear as far as possession and trafficking goes. Subsection 4(1) and Schedule II of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) spell out the illegality of ganja for the average Joe.
But 55(1) of the CDSA is a tricky clause that allows for exemptions to be made. Furthering this exemption is a foggy regulatory scheme—called the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations—which allows people with illnesses to legally access pot.
But only dried bud.
Smith's lawyer, Kirk Tousaw, argued that the exemption is arbitrary and opens up medical users to the heavy hand of the law if patients want to cook weed into a brownie rather than smoke a joint.
Tousaw argued it's easy in Canada for medical pot users to be cast into criminal territory for their behaviour.
To judges, he described a clinically ill female patient who was used as a witness during the trial.
According to Tousaw, she can lawfully hold nugs of weed. She can lawfully grind up the marijuana medicine and put it in a strainer.
"As long as she keeps the strainer in the water and drinks the tea with the dried marijuana, she's not breaking the law," he said. "But the minute she takes the tea strainer out of the cup, she's now holding and possessing THC, which is not lawful."
Meanwhile Paul Riley, the Crown prosecutor, suggested that the case isn't about drawing a line between dried pot and other forms of edible dope or hash oil.
He argued medical users claiming a non-existent exemption for extracts are just choosing an illegal form of medical marijuana over legally-available prescription drugs derived from pot, such as Marinol or Sativex.
He also pointed to the option for patients to vaporize weed instead of turning it into something else.
Canada's government is not the authority that saw dried marijuana become part of the medical arsenal for patients in the first place—it was instead a court-ruled exemption. Riley pointed this out during the hearing and also urged the court to allow "judicial deference," which is a term that means the court should step down and give leeway to the government.
Tousaw, however, saw the hearing as an opportunity to address ambiguities in the present medical marijuana situation.
"At some point the endless cycle of litigation on this issue needs to cease," Tousaw told the high court, saying the issue has been ambiguous for at least 15 years.
He said there needs to be a clear line of what is criminal and what is non-criminal.
Riley bore the brunt of sharp comments from the judges during his time to speak and it was suggested to him to stop using "lawyer words" to describe the legal issues at bar.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin asked Riley during the hearing to "confine your points to things that really matter."
VICE reached Tousaw by phone to ask how the hearing went.
Tousaw said he felt that the court was receptive to his arguments.
"You don't want to read too much into the tenor of the [judges'] questioning," he said. "But the Crown got the rougher end. We were in the happier position, because the other side has to convince to the court that the other [lower judges] got it wrong. It's nice to be on that side of the fence."
VICE asked about Tousaw's proposition to the court to remove medical marijuana from the CDSA , which would automatically make medical marijuana—in all of its numerous forms—part of Canada's Food and Drugs Act.
This would see it immediately classified as a "Natural Health Product."
"The remedy will be the part, I think, where I probably asked for the most," said Tousaw.
Justice Thomas Cromwell put the implications of Tousaw's bold request into context:
"You want us to dismantle the regime," he told Tousaw.
Tousaw described what his remedy would look like:
"The real change would be the consumer end. Consumers and patients can grow and possess without fear of criminal sanction. It takes patients out of the justice system and leaves commercial (buyers) and sellers highly regulated," he said.
Of course, you'd still need a doctor to perform the role of gatekeeper in order for patients to obtain weed. However, Tousaw told VICE that even physicians can create arbitrary rules to accessing medical pot, and added there is a legal precedent for the state to want to control or prohibit recreational marijuana.
He referenced a new policy being adopted by the BC College of Physicians that could see an age minimum of 25 placed on prescribing medical pot to ill patients, some of whom have neuropathic pain from ailments like cancer.
"Maybe doctors shouldn't be the gatekeepers, maybe we need to make it naturopathic doctors; people who are familiar with herbs that understand the actual science and risk profiles," he said.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i am VERY hopeful we win but I am not sure how I feel about it being listed and governed by the food & drug act. would that make stricter testing for edibles? ,maybe that would only be if you see to the public but nothing if you do it yourself...
PLEASE NOTE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED
From: our lead attorney John W Conroy WC "Injunction"
There are no dates set as yet on the motion to vary the injunction.
At the conclusion of proceedings on May 1. the Defendant Canada was given until May 15th to produce their affidavit responding to ours and they did so. We then had to decide whether or not to cross examine him Eric Costen, and the Defendants motion record is due May 22. The court said it might be available the first week of June to hear it.
We have also decided we should do an oral hearing and not do it in writing given the nature of the issues.
When there is a hearing date, we will post it on the webpage.
A copy of the motion to vary Is on the webpage in the latest update after the memorandums of argument.
1. No you cannot move your production site locations until the court says so;
2. There is no scheduled hearing date in court on the motion to vary the injunction as yet and when known we will advise by posting;
3. The new appeal arising out of the cross appeal in relation to the injunction was discontinued in favor of proceeding with the motion to vary before Justice Phelan, as the trial judge who has heard all the evidence and because the evidence (the affidavits of Jason Wilcox and Danielle Lukiv) were not allowed to be adduced in the Record in the Court of Appeal as new evidence and that evidence is in the Record before Justice Phelan and the government chose not to cross examine on it. Changes to the injunction will be dealt with by Justice Phelan on the motion to vary.
John
John W. Conroy QC
Conroy & Company
Barrister & Solicitor
2459 Pauline Street
Abbotsford, B.C.
Canada
V2S 3S1
Webpage: www.johnconroy.com
Email: [email protected]
Tel: (604) 852 5110
Fax: (604)859 3361
From: Jason Wilcox [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:51 AM
From: our lead attorney John W Conroy WC "Injunction"
There are no dates set as yet on the motion to vary the injunction.
At the conclusion of proceedings on May 1. the Defendant Canada was given until May 15th to produce their affidavit responding to ours and they did so. We then had to decide whether or not to cross examine him Eric Costen, and the Defendants motion record is due May 22. The court said it might be available the first week of June to hear it.
We have also decided we should do an oral hearing and not do it in writing given the nature of the issues.
When there is a hearing date, we will post it on the webpage.
A copy of the motion to vary Is on the webpage in the latest update after the memorandums of argument.
1. No you cannot move your production site locations until the court says so;
2. There is no scheduled hearing date in court on the motion to vary the injunction as yet and when known we will advise by posting;
3. The new appeal arising out of the cross appeal in relation to the injunction was discontinued in favor of proceeding with the motion to vary before Justice Phelan, as the trial judge who has heard all the evidence and because the evidence (the affidavits of Jason Wilcox and Danielle Lukiv) were not allowed to be adduced in the Record in the Court of Appeal as new evidence and that evidence is in the Record before Justice Phelan and the government chose not to cross examine on it. Changes to the injunction will be dealt with by Justice Phelan on the motion to vary.
John
John W. Conroy QC
Conroy & Company
Barrister & Solicitor
2459 Pauline Street
Abbotsford, B.C.
Canada
V2S 3S1
Webpage: www.johnconroy.com
Email: [email protected]
Tel: (604) 852 5110
Fax: (604)859 3361
From: Jason Wilcox [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:51 AM
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
that is what I have been waiting for! i have an email and call to Conroy as well as Tousaw
R.Raider
Well-Known Member
Well that sucks.
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
That's actually better - Phalen will see where Manson fucked up....Manson INTENTIONALLY left out 15000?? patients in order to help facilitate a punitive and vindictive regulation...it's not the courts job to ensure that big business succeeds...the MMPR could have been started from scratch just like every other goddam business and built up with all the new desperately ill patients (ahem ahem) supporting them...everyone keeps forgetting that mj is supposed to be the treatment of last resort...not so anymore...I encourage everyone to use mj and mellow the fuck out.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
we should hear about the Smith (extract/edible c
if Conroy had 1 more Plaintiff-one with current licences-then we wouldn't have this mess! all he had to do was include that one person & we would be allowed changes! the 150 may have still been an issue but changes would not be
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
here's another mind blown-Conroy had the upper judges agree with him that there should be relief so those judges sent the order back to Manson to explain why he left people out...so he already won at a higher level and now abandons it...why? to have new evidence introduced?? he should have just pressed forward in my opinion
TheDizzyBizzy
Well-Known Member
He likely did it to intentionally leave Wilcox out of it since he's such a tool. Conroy's a scammer too, but that was probably a smart move.
R.Raider
Well-Known Member
I like Conroy but agree with the other stuff.
R.Raider
Well-Known Member
Wrong!
You're obviously not legal I take it. Getting my MMAR licenses was one of the best things I ever did in my life.