Docket: T-2030-13
Citation: 2014 FC 1260
Vancouver, British Columbia, December 30, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Manson
BETWEEN:
NEIL ALLARD
TANYA BEEMISH
DAVID HEBERT
SHAWN DAVEY
Applicants/Plaintiffs
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Respondent/Defendant
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
(the judge) 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…I am unable to understand whether the judge intended to exclude Ms.
Beemish and Mr. Hebert or simply forgot to deal with their situation…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…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 December 22, 23 and 24, 2014;
THIS COURT
ORDERS that:
[1]
The Plaintiffs request a reconsideration of my
decision of March 31, 2014, to:
(i)
order that all patients that held a valid
Authorization to Possess (ATP) on March 21, 2013 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.
[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 the injunctive relief to extend
only to those individuals who held valid licenses to either possess or produce
marijuana for medical purposes as of those relevant dates.
[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.
[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 Marijuana Medical Access Regulations
(MMAR) licensing regime no longer being in force.
[6]
Given that Ms. Beemish did not possess a valid
license to possess on March 21, 2014 (the license having expired on January 4,
2014) and that Mr. Hebert could no longer renew his designated production
license (having moved residence on October 30, 2013) neither Ms. Beemish nor
Mr. Hebert were covered by the injunctive relief granted. The fact that they
did not possess valid licenses as of the transitional dates was determinative
of their inability to be covered by the injunctive remedy granted.
"Michael D. Manson"
FEDERAL
COURT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD
Email this Content