Federal court | Injunctions
INTERLOCUTORY RELIEF
Expanding scope of injunction order would disrupt balance of convenience analysis
Action challenged constitutionality of Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. Plaintiffs were granted interlocutory injunction that had very specific terms designed to balance number of competing interests. Plaintiffs wanted to change dates set out in injunction order and to change class of persons covered by order and extend order to wider group of former Marihuana Medical Access Regulations holders. Plaintiffs brought motion to vary injunction. Motion dismissed. Matters raised on motion were not truly new. Motion was premature. To accept plaintiffs’ characterization of evidence, its weight and significance would require court to make critical determinations in advance of decision on underlying Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge. It was not appropriate for court to engage in piecemeal and premature consideration of aspects of its final judgment. Court should not alter carefully crafted interlocutory injunction order by expanding its terms. Expanding scope of injunction order would disrupt balance of convenience analysis. Relief sought extended past decision date of Charter challenge. Interlocutory orders were designed to expire when final decision in litigation was made.
Allard v. Canada (Jul. 15, 2015, F.C., Michael L. Phelan J., File No. T-2030-13) 261 A.C.W.S. (3d) 708.
Expanding scope of injunction order would disrupt balance of convenience analysis
Action challenged constitutionality of Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. Plaintiffs were granted interlocutory injunction that had very specific terms designed to balance number of competing interests. Plaintiffs wanted to change dates set out in injunction order and to change class of persons covered by order and extend order to wider group of former Marihuana Medical Access Regulations holders. Plaintiffs brought motion to vary injunction. Motion dismissed. Matters raised on motion were not truly new. Motion was premature. To accept plaintiffs’ characterization of evidence, its weight and significance would require court to make critical determinations in advance of decision on underlying Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge. It was not appropriate for court to engage in piecemeal and premature consideration of aspects of its final judgment. Court should not alter carefully crafted interlocutory injunction order by expanding its terms. Expanding scope of injunction order would disrupt balance of convenience analysis. Relief sought extended past decision date of Charter challenge. Interlocutory orders were designed to expire when final decision in litigation was made.
Allard v. Canada (Jul. 15, 2015, F.C., Michael L. Phelan J., File No. T-2030-13) 261 A.C.W.S. (3d) 708.
