Allard v. Canada

Allard v. Canada

Court concluded applicants raised a serious issue and would suffer irreparable harm because LP prices would likely render legal supply unaffordable for some applicants; balancing public interests the court granted limited interlocutory relief: preserve MMAR possession and production rights for holders of valid ATPs and PPLs/DPLs as of September 30, 2013 (and licences issued thereafter) until trial, subject to terms including a 150 gram personal possession cap; mandamus and a broad constitutional exemption were refused; undertaking requirement waived.

Citation
2014 FC 280
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Neil Allard; Applicant/plaintiff: Tanya Beemish; Applicant/plaintiff: David Hebert; Applicant/plaintiff: Shawn Davey; Respondent/defendant: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Charter Challenge S.7 (medical Marijuana) / Interlocutory Motion for Injunction and Exemption (pre Trial)
Outcome
Motion granted in part and dismissed in part: limited interlocutory relief preserving MMAR rights for specified licence holders until trial; otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Section 7 Charter, Medical Marijuana Regulation, Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, Interlocutory Injunction, Mandamus, Access to Medicine
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Regulatory Law Criminal Law Health Law Section 7 Charter Medical Marijuana Regulation Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Allard

Applicant/plaintiff

Tanya Beemish

Applicant/plaintiff

David Hebert

Applicant/plaintiff

Shawn Davey

Applicant/plaintiff

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Charter Challenge S.7 (medical Marijuana) / Interlocutory Motion for Injunction and Exemption (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established a serious issue to be tried for an interlocutory injunction
  2. 2 Whether the applicants will suffer irreparable harm absent relief
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors interlocutory relief preserving MMAR rights

Ratio Decidendi

Court concluded applicants raised a serious issue and would suffer irreparable harm because LP prices would likely render legal supply unaffordable for some applicants; balancing public interests the court granted limited interlocutory relief: preserve MMAR possession and production rights for holders of valid ATPs and PPLs/DPLs as of September 30, 2013 (and licences issued thereafter) until trial, subject to terms including a 150 gram personal possession cap; mandamus and a broad constitutional exemption were refused; undertaking requirement waived.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part and dismissed in part: limited interlocutory relief preserving MMAR rights for specified licence holders until trial; otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • Applicants holding a valid Authorization to Possess (ATP) under MMAR as of the date of this Order are exempt from repeal of the MMAR and from any operation of the MMPR inconsistent with the MMAR; such ATPs remain valid until decision in this case, subject to paragraph 2
  • Terms of the exemption for ATP holders shall conform to the terms of their ATP notwithstanding expiry date, except the maximum quantity authorized to possess shall be the lesser of the licence amount or 150 grams