So, any clarity on the extension?
what he said. anyone speak to kirk or john about if all this is real and applies to us general MMAR holders?
So, any clarity on the extension?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHpMQLCOwBU&feature=youtube_gdata_playerwhat he said. anyone speak to kirk or john about if all this is real and applies to us general MMAR holders?
So, any clarity on the extension?
16:00 min?
I could tell people the answer on a 7 sec Vine video.
it's nice that conroy is telling everyone to grow but the crown is taking an opposite position in court saying the ruling only applies to those in the injunction cases and not all other mmar holders.
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Manson
BETWEEN:
NEIL ALLARD
TANYA BEEMISH
DAVID HEBERT
SHAWN DAVEY
Applicants/Plaintiffs
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1.
The Applicants who, as of the date of this Order, h
old a valid Authorization to Possess
pursuant to section 11 of the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations,
are exempt from the
repeal of the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations
and any other operation of the
Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations
which are inconsistent with the operation of
the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations,
to the extent that such an Authorization to
Possess shall remain valid
until such time as a decision in this case is rende
red and subject to
the terms in paragraph 2 of this Order;
Ultimately, the Judge grants the Crown adjournment request delaying hearings on my clients' requested injunctions until after the Crown argues for a stay. But to do so he rules that the Allard injunction does protect my clients and by implication all other similarly situated patients. He does not rule on the 150g issue.
What a day. I'm very pleased that we were able to box in the government and confirm that the Allard injunction applies to more than just the individual plaintiffs in that case.
Hearing on the Crowns stay application is set for a half day on April 7 in BCSC Vancouver.
They say they are reviewing the decision and will have more information Monday. Really it appears they are grasping at straws and looking for any way they can to not comply. seems they have a problem with playing by the rules. Pot calling the kettle black? lolWhat are the nice people at HC saying....I know it takes up to 10biz days to reply sometime...
I've read the order a dozen times now and still doesn't really make sense. There is lots of lawyer speak. It doesn't help that every other media source is reporting a different take on it. There seems to be a lot of confusion around it to be honest, especially for people that sort of fall into a limbo category (only had ATP under MMAR, didn't renew PPL/DPL before x date etc). HC is trying to use the lawyer speak and confusion to their advantage, saying the injunction only applies to those 4 plaintiffs and not the whole MMAR program.
Could you please clarify and back up your claims.
Please POST these news/media stories that are reporting a different take on it(the MMAR extension ruling). Everything I have read says we are allowed to continue growing as before with only one change, that being the 150 gram transport rule(Which is...your original amount or 150 grams...whatever is less). This only affects patients that have a daily gram limit over 5 grams. A daily limit of 5 grams and under is not affected by the new ruling, only those 6 grams and over are affected.
Here is the News coverage on the court extension/injunction that states all patients are allowed to continue growing. All these links are legitimate new agencies, available on the MMAR's Coalitions website.
http://www.theprovince.com/health/M...+their+federal+court+rules/9646849/story.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...uana-users-can-grow-at-home-for-now-1.2581742
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/03/20140321-172654.html
http://www.arrowlakesnews.com/news/251535901.html
http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...saries-encouraged-by-court-ruling-1891395.htm
Here's a link to the MMAR coalitions site.
http://www.mmarcoalitionagainstrepeal.com/index.html
Please POST a link to where Health Canada states that "the injunction only applies to those 4 plaintiffs" and not the whole MMAR program and all it's patients. All I've heard/read is Health Canada is in review of the Court Ordered Extension', which means nothing except, there taking a time out because they don't want to comment at this time...It's a "NO COMMENT" response.
PLEASE EVERYONE!...If you can't back up your accusations, stop spreading rumors and hearsay, this only turns into FEAR and CONFUSION.
We won people...Don't let a few Nay-Sayers ruin the great feeling that accompanies a win of this magnitude.
Peace...B
KirkTousaw @KirkTousaw Mar 25 Court confirms that Allard injunction protects my clients (and thus, I say, all MMAR patients)