Allard v. Canada

Parties

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction in Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Medical Marijuana Regulatory Transition / Amended Order and Reasons After Remittal by Federal Court of Appeal for Clarification of Scope of Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the interlocutory injunction issued by the Federal Court judge extended to Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert
2. 2 Whether the court should reconsider or expand the scope of its prior interlocutory remedy
3. 3 Whether eligibility for interlocutory relief is determined by holding valid licences/authorizations on specified transitional dates

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory injunction was deliberately limited by the judge to plaintiffs who held valid licences/authorizations on the specified transitional dates (September 30, 2013 for production and March 21, 2014 for possession); because Ms. Beemish's licence had expired and Mr. Hebert could not renew his designated producer licence due to relocation, they did not meet the eligibility criteria and therefore are not covered by the injunction; the Federal Court of Appeal remitted only for clarification and did not authorize expansion or reconsideration of the remedy.

Court Disposition

Application for reconsideration/expansion denied; interlocutory injunction confined to plaintiffs who held valid licences/authorizations on the specified transitional dates; Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert excluded from the injunctive relief.

Orders

• Remittal from the Federal Court of Appeal was for clarification only; no reconsideration or expansion granted.
• Interlocutory relief applies only to plaintiffs who held valid production licences on September 30, 2013 and valid authorizations to possess on March 21, 2014.