Lawyer John Conroy update from 27 Oct. 2016

buckets

Well-Known Member
This was posted on facebook and I am pasting it here for members to read.

Further to our recent telephone conversation this will confirm that the costs issue is under active consideration between the Department of Justice and ourselves and once the matter is settled I will provide you and others, with an accounting.

Everyone is very grateful for the work of the MMAR Coalition (now Cannabis Rights Coalition) in raising substantial funds initially in late 2013 and throughout to enable us to take the action, obtain the injunction pending trial in March ,2014, obtain the final order in the patient's favor in February,2016 and requiring the government to restore essentially the MMAR by August 24, 2017. The Task Force on Legalization will report to the government in November,2016 and the government will apparently commence the legislative process towards legalization in the spring of 2017 and obviously there will be more changes in relation to the "reasonable access for medical purposes" in a legal regime instead of being an exception under a criminal law statute – namely the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Here is the October 9, 2016 update from the MMAR Constitutional Challenge link on my webpage, with some slight modifications and emphasis, and additions that sets out my current opinion and instruction/advice to all "medically approved" patients:

1. Those of you who are covered by the Allard decision, and in particular the injunction Order of March 21, 2014 of Justice Manson continue to be protected by that Order and the final Order "until this Court orders otherwise" as per Justice Phelan, February 24, 2016 - 2016 FC 237;

2. Those of you who were not covered by Allard may now apply under Part 2 of the ACMPR since August 24, 2016 to register to produce for yourself or to have a designated person produce for you at the production site that is specified in the application. This enables those of you who wish to change your previous MMAR site to now apply to produce at the new location. The ACMPR application is not a renewal nor a transition and you do not provide any of your old medical documentation in support of your application. You have to get a new "medical document" under the ACMPR and provide the "original" of that document with your application to register;

3. I recommend that those of you covered by the Allard injunction and Orders also apply under the ACMPR for the same coverage that you have under the MMAR as the provisions of the ACMPR are substantially if not identical to the MMAR in terms of the formulas in relation to dosages per day. You need to get a new " medical document" from your physician/doctor and as under number 2 above, you do not send in MMAR documents but the 'original' of that document. This way you may be covered under both the Allard injunction and the ACMPR before any new changes are made. Further, you will not simply be at the mercy of the Courts further order whatever that might turn out to be;

4. If you experience problems obtaining the same thing under the ACMPR as you had on the MMAR, please do NOT call my office, but prepare a statement of the problems that you have experienced that limit what you had or continue to have under the MMAR that arise from the ACMPR so we can see what problems the new regulations pose for patients and can submit that to the court to demonstrate the problems when it comes to that court making any further orders. This should be sent by snail mail or email to my office or to the MMAR Coalition at [email protected];

5. If your problems are with your physician/doctor in relation to dosage or otherwise ,this is not caused by the ACMPR, except to the extent that it carries forward the doctors as gatekeepers from the MMAR, but by the Canadian Medical Association and Provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons. If you experience these problems a statement by snail mail or email should also be sent to my office indicating this type of problem so we can determine what proceedings can be taken against those bodies for restricting reasonable access. You should also consider filing a complaint against her doctor with the local provincial college or complaining to the college about its unreasonable restrictions on the patient's "reasonable access";

6. The ACMPR consists essentially of the MMPR in Part 1 and the MMAR and Part 2 with a few changes. The Task Force on Legalization will report in November and new "legalization" legislation is expected in the spring of 2017 that will further address medical "reasonable access" in the context of a legal regime and not the continued prohibition regime that currently exists - this is where further changes will arise.

Consequently, in my opinion, medically approved patients whether grandfathered under the MMAR or new applicants, including old MMAR applicants who were not covered, should apply under the ACMPR to try and obtain the equivalent of what they had under the MMAR and keep a record of any problems they have on obtaining "reasonable access" and provide them to [email protected] to keep a record of them for possible introduction into evidence to show the problems with the ACMPR if this matter goes back to court in front of Justice Phelan in a further effort to modify the injunction order, challenge the doctor gatekeeper role or possibly upon the application of the government to end the injunction order. In my opinion, even if you can't obtain your same dosage as before, you should obtain whatever possible dosage the doctor will allow and then worry about trying to get a greater allowance afterwards. Those with current large dosages should be prepared to explain and justify the need and perhaps also obtain the report of an expert/specialist.

I would recommend that a list also be kept of those doctors that are abusing the process by taking kickbacks from the LPs or charging exorbitant fees be kept as well as one that identifies honest and knowledgeable and informed doctors in this area so that other patients can be referred to and treated by knowledgeable physicians and the others are avoided and perhaps reported to the local College of Physicians and Surgeons.

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
 

cannadan

Well-Known Member
Ya just sounds like more hoop jumping....I'm keeping my pinks for now...
like you should register for the acmpr...and have some doctor who will try and lower your prescription
go ahead and do so....and let John know by snail mail...Hmmm I'm done taking it for the team ....boss.....
This whole mmj scheme is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth...I want out...
 

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
Seems like this is re-iterating what he's already posted, but the advice is sound.

The government can, at any time petition the court to drop the injunction now that the ACMPR is in place. You can hang onto your MMAR forms all you want, once the injunction is done they don't mean anything. Applying under the ACMPR doesn't invalidate your injunction status, and if a doctor will only approve a certain amount lower than the MMAR amount then that's evidence they can put before Phelan.

If the injunction is lifted and you've made no effort to apply under the ACMPR, then you have no legal protection, and depending on what the feds do when the injunction is lifted you might be paid a non-pleasant visit.

If John doesn't have impact statements, then there's nothing to show Phelan that there are still access problems with the ACMPR. We're all complaining about the role of the CMA / provincial colleges, so here's the opportunity to do something about it. It sounds like he's considering a court case regarding the medical regulatory associations being the new barrier to reasonable access, which is great news, but he can't do that without any evidence.
 

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
I don't care what Conroy says...I'm not doing shit until Phelan says we have to.
Phelan's not going to tell you to do anything. He's either going to say 'the injunction is lifted', at which point only people in the current ACMPR regime are protected. Or, he'll say 'There are problems with the ACMPR', and the injunction may continue while that litigation happens.

This is pretty much the reverse of 'if Conroy had only had another defendant in the original case', so if Conroy is unable to stay an injunction lift or commence proceedings against medical regulatory associations, the only person to blame is the one in the mirror.
 

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
Why would that be? If I can't get my doctor to do what I need and Conroy can't do shit about it why is on me?
Conroy can't just say 'Justice Phelan, please direct the government to change the ACMPR because I say that it's not fair to patients'. That's not how the law works.

There are criticisms to be made of the coalition, but in the end they are responsible for having the MMPR invalidated, so it's somewhat bizarre to me that spending some time getting proof to a lawyer who will have a chance to make the problems with the ACMPR known is considered too much effort.

Everyone's complained about what the colleges are doing, some have said 'man we need a legal challenge', so here's your opportunity.
 

WHATFG

Well-Known Member
I understand how the law works. Didn't docs tell the gov way back they didn't want to be the gatekeepers?
As for the coalition getting the MMPR invalidated...well, I don't think old Wilcox did much but pump himself and his lp friends up. I will not support it or him. I had direct contact with Conroy pre-February court date... I have a pretty good handle on the barriers to access.
Spending time getting proof to a lawyer...again for what purpose? So that doctors can say see we told you we didn't want to do this and now we're not?
 

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
i have sent in impact statements for my wife and I but i don't think it'll do much.
although, if CONroy smells money-I am sure he'll do a better job.
we should remember he almost didn't take the case because he didn't think we could raise the money and it showed. he took a short cut and cut out half the patients...then kept asking for more $$.
when he got a whiff of the privacy breach being handled by Branch McMasters, he tried to get 5% of that for doing no work. he replied "you need a lot of money for a Cadillac job" that showed me he's only in this for the money.
i wonder what kind of challenge we'll get from him if he takes this one? will we get the Cadillac job this time because we might get costs again?
I also wonder if the people who gave $$ will get any back due to him getting costs...or will he simply keep it? i don't think I'll see a dime back
 

cannadan

Well-Known Member
Seems like this is re-iterating what he's already posted, but the advice is sound.

The government can, at any time petition the court to drop the injunction now that the ACMPR is in place. You can hang onto your MMAR forms all you want, once the injunction is done they don't mean anything. Applying under the ACMPR doesn't invalidate your injunction status, and if a doctor will only approve a certain amount lower than the MMAR amount then that's evidence they can put before Phelan.

If the injunction is lifted and you've made no effort to apply under the ACMPR, then you have no legal protection, and depending on what the feds do when the injunction is lifted you might be paid a non-pleasant visit.

If John doesn't have impact statements, then there's nothing to show Phelan that there are still access problems with the ACMPR. We're all complaining about the role of the CMA / provincial colleges, so here's the opportunity to do something about it. It sounds like he's considering a court case regarding the medical regulatory associations being the new barrier to reasonable access, which is great news, but he can't do that without any evidence.
Alot of us are totally done jumping thru hoops and having barriers put up to halt our usage of a plant that will be legally sold
in stores in no time
Our storage at the time legalization hits will still be legal...and I will continue to use it regardless of the injunction being lifted or not...
The cops have already paid me a couple of visits....since my house was robbed ..so how did having pinks help....
the gov sold me out with the envelope thing...my neighbour took pictures over my fence...which is set back from the property line 8 feet.. then showed them to all the unsavory characters around here...
How has having mmj in my life helped me out. The whole fuckin program from day one I signed up ,has been one giant farce.
I hope John Conroy all the best....with his litigation
If I could go back a few years...I would certainly not have signed up for this much harassment and info over load.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Conroy can't just say 'Justice Phelan, please direct the government to change the ACMPR because I say that it's not fair to patients'. That's not how the law works.

There are criticisms to be made of the coalition, but in the end they are responsible for having the MMPR invalidated, so it's somewhat bizarre to me that spending some time getting proof to a lawyer who will have a chance to make the problems with the ACMPR known is considered too much effort.

Everyone's complained about what the colleges are doing, some have said 'man we need a legal challenge', so here's your opportunity.
The same applies to government. They can't simply tell Phelan to end the injunction because they think the ACMPR fixed all the problems. Until ALL barriers to access are removed, including abuse of power/influence by the medical system, the injunction remains in effect and my MMAR pinks are good. I'm still claiming my right to personal autonomy in my health care in the event my pinks become invalid, but I don't think that'll be an issue for a year or more. Either way, no doctors and NO ACMPR for this guy. I'm fucking done with HC.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
The guy doesn't even have an existing condition...just a family history of something and a will NOT to consult a doctor over his choice of (pre) treatment. I'm guessing I will have no issue claiming the same for my 49 plants given that my condition actually exists. PERSONAL AUTONOMY, especially over your body is a fundamental right, nobody including some pos doctor is going to decide on my quality of life.
 
Top