Allard v. Canada

Allard v. Canada

The motion to vary was dismissed because the asserted new matters were not truly new, the motion was premature as it would require the Court to make determinations reserved for the final decision, expanding the injunction would disrupt the balance of convenience and risk unraveling the carefully crafted order, and the relief sought exceeded the scope of Rule 399(2).

Citation
2015 FC 866
Parties
Plaintiff (moving Party): Neil Allard; Plaintiff (moving Party): Tanya Beemish; Plaintiff (moving Party): David Hebert; Plaintiff (moving Party): Shawn Davey; Defendant (respondent on the Motion): Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Charter Challenge to Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations With Motion to Vary Interlocutory Injunction / Motion to Vary Interlocutory Injunction Pursuant to Rule 399(2); Trial Completed and Final Submissions Pending
Outcome
Motion to vary denied with costs in any event of the cause.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction Variation, New Evidence/new Matter, Prematurity of Relief, Mmpr/mmar Transition, Charter Remedies
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Injunctions Regulatory Law (medical Cannabis) Interlocutory Injunction Variation New Evidence/new Matter Prematurity of Relief Mmpr/mmar Transition +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Allard

Plaintiff (moving Party)

Tanya Beemish

Plaintiff (moving Party)

David Hebert

Plaintiff (moving Party)

Shawn Davey

Plaintiff (moving Party)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

Defendant (respondent on the Motion)

Procedural Posture

Charter Challenge to Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations With Motion to Vary Interlocutory Injunction / Motion to Vary Interlocutory Injunction Pursuant to Rule 399(2); Trial Completed and Final Submissions Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence relied on for variation constitutes truly new matter
  2. 2 Whether the motion is premature because it requires determinations reserved for the final decision
  3. 3 Whether the Court should expand or extend the terms of a carefully crafted interlocutory injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to vary was dismissed because the asserted new matters were not truly new, the motion was premature as it would require the Court to make determinations reserved for the final decision, expanding the injunction would disrupt the balance of convenience and risk unraveling the carefully crafted order, and the relief sought exceeded the scope of Rule 399(2).

Court Disposition

Motion to vary denied with costs in any event of the cause.

Orders

  • Motion to vary denied with costs in any event of the cause.